A DEFENCE OF THE Catholic Faith Concerning the Satisfaction of Christ.  
Written originally By the Learned HUGO GROTIUS; And now Translated by W. H.  
A Work very necessary in these Times for the preventing of the Growth of Socinianism.  
LONDON: Printed for Thomas Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns at the lower end of Cheapside near Mercer's Chapel, and Jonathan Robinson at the Golden Lion in St. Paul's Churchyard. 1692.   

TO THE RIGHT WORSHIPFUL Sir CHARLES WOOSELEY Knight and Baronet.  Much Honoured Sir, 
THE Translation of this worthy Labour of the great and famous Grotius, may boldly Claim the Honour of being Dedicated to your Patronage for many Causes. The Excellency of this Subject, being a Defence of one of the most Fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith, requires a Patron of Worth and Excellency; and such a one (I may speak it without flattery) is yourself, who are eminent for Learning, and exemplary for Piety. Your Works that are published in the World, which are both greatly approved for their Piety, and justly admired for their Profundity, are an invincible Argument, how Greatness and Goodness are joined together in you by a a lovely Union. But there is also a peculiar Encouragement to Dedicate this Book to you, because you were the first that encouraged the Translation and Publication of this Work. And verily, if the seasonableness of a thing adds to its beauty, as Solomon hath testified, this Work hath found a fit time for its Impression. For at this time, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, damnable Heresy, or Heresy of Destruction, as the word in the Original signifies, that Root of Bitterness, the hellish Error of wretched and blasphemous Socinus, who trampled under his Feet the Blood of Jesus, the Mediator of the New Covenant, is now beginning to spread itself in England, and to infect whole Houses with a worse and more dangerous than any Egyptian Plague. If the Son of Croesus, who had been dumb all his days before, was so wonderfully affected with the danger his Father's Life was in, that the bands of his Tongue, through the vehemency of Natural Affection, were dissolved, so that he, that never spoke before, suddenly cried out, Kill not my Father King Croesus; how much more zealously may I, that have been a great while lurking in Darkness, as those that have been long dead, now appear in the Light against those Enemies of my Redeemer, who by their horrid Blasphemies are not ashamed to spit in the Face of my Lord Jesus with greater Impudence than ever did the Jews at his Crucifixion. I am very glad that my blessed Redeemer hath honoured me to be Instrumental for the Confutation of that filthy Error of Socinianism, which is as ready a way to Hell, as ever the Devil of Hell found out, since he was a Devil.  
Methinks the very mention of the name of Socinus, may make the heart of a gracious Christian to rise with holy Indignation, and his hair to stand with amazement, that such a blasphemous Wretch could be found upon the Earth. How did this Blasphemer strive to vilify the Blood of Christ Jesus, as if thereby our Sins had not been expiated, as if thereby no Satisfaction had been made to the Justice of the holy God, as if the Death and Sufferings of this Lamb of God had not taken away the sins of the World, and had been no Propitiation for our sins. Those wicked Blasphemies are throughly Confuted, both by invincible Arguments of sound Reason, and evident Testimonies of Scripture in this Learned Work of Grotius. God hath exhorted all Christians by the holy Apostle Judas, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to contend vehemently, or to contend as men that are striving for the mastery, as the Original Word signifies, for the Faith that was once delivered to the Saints; therefore I may justly hope that this Work will be acceptable to all good Christians, into whose hands it shall come. And that yourself, as you were the first Encourager of its Publication, will now also willingly Patronise its being published.  
Worthy Sir, I recommend you to the Grace of the Lord Jesus, and I beg of God that he may prolong your Life to the glory of his Name, and after you have passed the time of your Mortality, that an Entrance may be ministered to you abundantly into the Everlasting Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. I am  
Your much obliged Servant, W. H.   
A DEFENCE OF THE Catholic Faith Concerning the Satisfaction of Christ: AGAINST FAUSTUS SOCINUS.  Written by Hugo Grotius. 

CHAP. I. The State of the Controversy is showed, and the true Opinion is Explained in the Words of Scripture.  
BEfore we come to this Dispute, we will first set down that Opinion, which being taken out of Sacred Writings, the Church of Christ hath hitherto defended with an unwavering Faith, that afterwards it may evidently appear, what is the difference between this and the Opinion of Socinus: Therefore we shall explain the same Opinion, bringing some Testimonies of Scripture, which because Socinus wrested to another Sense, by the way the true Interpretation of them shall be vindicated. Therefore the Catholic Opinion is thus: God being moved by his own Goodness to be signally beneficial unto us, but our sins standing in the way, which deserved Punishment, he appointed that Christ, being willing of his own free Love towards men, should suffer punishment for our sins by enduring very grievous Torments, and a bloody and ignominious Death, that without prejudice to the demonstration of the Divine Righteousness we should, by Faith Interposing, be delivered from the punishment of Eternal Death.  
The first Efficient Cause of the Thing, whereof we treat, is God. God gave his only begotten Son, that he that believeth in him should not perish, John 3.16. God spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, Rom. 8.32. God laid upon Christ the sins of us all, Isai. 53.6. God made Christ sin, 2 Cor. 5.21.  
The former Cause that moved God is Mercy, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Love to Mankind. So God loved the World, that he gave his Son, John 3.16. God commends his Love to us, that when we were yet sinners, Christ died for us, Rom. 5.10.  
The other Cause, which moved God, is our Sins deserving Punishment. Christ was delivered for our sins, Rom. 4.25. Where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is with an Accusative, which amongst the Authors of the Greek Tongue, Sacred and Profane, is a very usual sign of an impulsive Cause: As when it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For these things the wrath of God comes upon the Children of Disobedience, Eph. 5.6. And as oft as that Phrase, propter peccata, for Sins, is joined to Sufferings, it admits no sense different from an impulsive Cause: I will punish you seven times for your sins, Levit. 26.28. For those Abominations the Lord God casts them out from your sight, Deut. 18.12. and in several other places of Scripture; neither is it any where other ways.  
And that other Phrase, pro peccatis, for sins, hath the same force, as oft as it is joined with Sufferings. Hitherto belong those, Christ died 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for our sins, 1 Cor. 15.3. Christ suffered once 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for sins, 1 Pet. 3.18. Christ gave himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for our sins, Gal. 1.4. Christ offered a Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for sins, Hebr. 10.12. And yet in these places Socinus would have the final Cause, and not the impulsive to be denoted. Yea, which is more, he adds, That by the word (pro) for, and the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (for) there was never an impulsive Cause declared, but always a final. Many places do evince that this latter, on which Socinus relies, is not true: For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 use to signify no less the impulsive Cause, than the final Cause. The Gentiles are said to praise God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Mercy, Rom. 15.9. that thanks may be given on our behalf 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, faith Paul, 2 Cor. 1.11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for you, Eph. 1.16. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eph. 5.20. We pray 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Christ's sake, 2 Cor. 5.21. Great is my glorying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on your behalf, 2. Cor. 7.4. and 9.2. and 12.5. straits 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Christ, 2 Cor. 12.10. I give thanks to God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for you, 1 Cor. 1.4. God will rebuke the wicked 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for all their ungodly Deeds, Judas 15. So also the Latins say, Pro beneficiis gratias agere aut reddere, to give or render thanks for benefits, as Cicero doth very often. The same said, Vlcisei pro injuriis, To revenge for Injuries; Pro magnitudine sceleris poenas persolvere, To suffer punishment for the greatness of the Crime; Supplicia pro maleficiis metuere, To fear punishments for evil Deeds. As Plautus, Castigare pro commerita noxia, To chastise for a deserving Crime. And Terentius; Pro dictis & factis: ulcisci, To take vengeance for Words and Deeds. In all these places (pro) for signifies not the final Cause, but the impulsive. So also when Christ is said, pro peccatis passus aut mortuus, to have suffered or died for sins; the Matter itself suffers not the final Cause to be understood (as Socinus would have it;) for because there is a twofold End, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The End to whom, and the End for whom. As the End to whom the Medicine is made, is the diseased Man, the End for the sake whereof is Health, and neither of them agree to sin: For whether you say with Socinus, that it is the end of Christ's Death, that we should be drawn back, or removed from our sins, or whether also that we may obtain the remission of sins, (that we may omit that this End, according to his opinion) could not be attributed unto Death, but very remotely) neither of them can be expressed by these words, propter peccata, for sins, or, pro peccatis, for sins: for the End to whom will be Man; but the End for what, is not for sins, but for that which is most contrary to sins, the destruction or remission of sins. Who ever said a Drug (or Medicine) was taken for Death, that is, to prevent Death? But it is therefore said to be taken for the Disease, because the Disease drives us thitherto. It follows, therefore, that the impulsive Cause should be understood here. Wherefore when also the Particle [Min] amongst the Hebrews denoted the Antecedent or impulsive Cause, as Psal. 38.9. and elsewhere often; that place of Isai. 53.5. cannot be translated better and more agreeably to other Scriptures than, Dolore afficitur ob defectiones nostras; atteritur ob iniquitates nostras: he is afflicted for our faults; he is bruised for our iniquities. And that Romans 6.10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, died unto sin, what other thing can it signify, but Mortuus est ob peccatum, he died for sin?  
But the impulsive Cause, though it may be manifold, yet in this place it must be taken for meritorious; for the Discourse is of Punishment, as we shall presently show. Now sins are the cause of punishment no otherways than by way of merit. Neither can it be showed that these words ob peccata, for sins, or propter peccata, for sins, are any otherways taken in the holy Scriptures, than in this signification of Merit, especially when they are joined with Sufferings. That place doth not prove the contrary 1 Kings 14.16. God will deliver Israel for the sins of Jeroboam: for the sins of Jeroboam in that place signify the kind itself of the sin, to wit, Idolatry, unto which Jeroboam stirred up the People: for the following words make that evident; quibus peccavit, & quibus peccare fecit Israelem, which he sinned, and which he made Israel to sin. For this is the truer Interpretation, than that brought by Socinus, Qui peccavit & qui peccare fecit Israelem, Who sinned, and who made Israel to sin. Therefore those sins, whereof Jeroboam was the Author, and the People the Followers, deserved that Punishment of being delivered up. Though I may also mention, that Sacred Writings do testify, that the followers of other men's sins are justly punished, not only for their own, but also for other men's sins; which is so evident, that Socinus himself is compelled to confess, that a man may be punished for other men's sins, if he is partaker of the Crime. But that place of Psalm 39.12. which Socinus citeth, makes evidently against him; In increpationibus propter iniquitatem corripuisti aliquem, & liquefieri fecisti ut tineam desiderium ejus; With rebukes thou hast corrected man for iniquity, and hast made his beauty to consume like a Moth; that is, If thou wouldst punish a man as much as his sin deserves, verily that man's life would not be worth the enjoying of it: for by this Argument he endeavours to move God to pity. As elsewhere; If thou mark iniquities, (that is, if thou strictly requirest punishment for them) who shall stand or endure? Psal. 130.3. Therefore that remains unshaken, that the Phrase ob peccata, for sins, doth denote the Impulsive Cause, and indeed the Meritorious: for that Socinus somewhere seeks this way of escape, that he says, It is sufficient for the truth of this Phrase, that any kind of occasion be signified. First, That is contrary to his Position, in which he had said that the word (pro) for, was never referred to an Impulsive Cause, but always to a Final Cause, because an Occasion is no way a Final Cause: but if it deserves to be called a Cause, it ought to be referred to an Impulsive, Moreover, both the Custom of Scripture and Usual Speech, doth clearly confute such an Exposition of the words, pro peccatis, for sins, and ob peccata, for sins. Hence it may be understood how erroneously Socinus denies, That there may be found an Antecedent Cause of the Death of Christ, besides the Will of God and Christ. Which is manifestly contrary to the saying of Paul, If there is righteousness by the Law, than Christ died 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in vain, Gal. 2.21. where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in vain, by the acknowledgement of Socinus, signifies without Cause: but there should have been added, without an Antecedent Cause; which is the original and most frequent signification of this word. The original of it is from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies a Gift, that is, such a Gift as hath not an Antecedent Cause of Right: whence it began to be translated also to other things, in which the Antecedent 'Cause is not found. So David, Psalm 25.19. speaking of his Enemies, says, They hated me [hinam] in vain, that is, when I had given them no Causes of hatred. Which Christ applying to himself, John 15.25. says, They hated me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without a cause, just in the same signification. The place of Paul itself, of which we are treating, suffers not another Cause than an Antecedent to be understood. For the Cause which Socinus deviseth, to wit, That they, who mend their lives, should be assured of the pardon of their sins, this Final Cause appertains unto the Preaching, and the Resurrection, but not to Death: which when Socinus saw, here he would have Christ understood by the name of Death, and also that Preaching and the Resurrection are included; both wrestingly and contrary to the mind of Paul: for Paul denying that Christ died for all, signifies that there is some peculiar Cause, which should belong to the Death of Christ; for otherways he could have preached for a certain Cause, and for a certain Cause have received a Reward, (for according to Socinus the Resurrection is only referred hither) and not have died. Moreover, that Paul had a peculiar respect to the Death of Christ, that which goes before makes it sufficiently evident, who gave himself for me; for that Giving every where in the Scripture signifies Death. And Paul calling this same thing the Grace of God, denies that that is despised or rejected by him, and immediately gives a Reason; For if righteousness came by the Law, Christ then died in vain: signifying by the contrary, that this is the peculiar Cause, why Christ gave himself, and died, because we by the Law were not just, but guilty of punishment; therefore our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iniquity is the Antecedent Cause of the Death of Christ. The other Efficient Cause is Christ himself, and that a willing Cause. I lay down my life, saith Christ; no man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself, John 10.18. Christ gave himself for us, for the Church, Gal. 2.20. Eph. 5.2. and 5.25.  
The Cause that moved Christ was his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Love to Mankind. This is, saith he, my Command, that ye love one another, as I loved you. Greater love than this hath no man, that a man should lay down his life for his Friends. Ye are my Friends, John 15.13. In the Faith of the Son of God that loved me, and gave himself for me, Gal. 2.20. Who loved us, and washed us from our sins in his blood, Apoc. 1.5. Christ loved us, and gave himself for us an Oblation, Eph. 5.2. Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for her, Eph. 5.25.  
The Matter is both the Torment going before Death, and chief Death itself. Isaiah calleth Torments by a pathetical name haburah, a Wound, Isai. 53.5. And 1 Pet. 2.24. calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, stripes. Therefore we also see mention made of the Cross, where this Argument is handled: He reconciled both to God by the Cross, Ephes. 2.16. Having made peace by the blood of the Cross, 1 Col. 12. Neither should only those Corporal pains be understood by the name of Torments, but chief those very grievous Sufferings of Mind, which the Evangelists signify by the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be sorrowful, to be astonished, to be heavy: in respect of which chief Christ cried out, that he was forsaken of God.  
The other part of the Matter, Death itself, is urged in many places: I lay down my life, John 10.18. He reconciled us by Death, Coloss. 1.22. Death coming between, for the Redemption of Transgressions, Hebr. 9.15. This Death in the holy Scriptures is considered chief with two qualities, as Bloody, and as Ignominious. That quality of bloody Death is denoted by the word Blood. This is the Blood of the New Covenant, which is poured forth for many, for the remission of sins, Matth. 26.28. Luke 22.20. God purchased the Church with his own blood, Acts 20.28. God hath appointed Christ for a Propitiation by Faith in his Blood, Rom. 3.25. Justified in his Blood, Rom. 5.9. We have redemption by his Blood, the remission of sins, Eph. 1.7. Ye that sometimes were afar off, are made near by the Blood of Christ, for he is our peace, Eph. 2.13. We have redemption by his Blood, Col. 1.14. Having made peace by the Blood of the Cross, Col. 1.14. Not by the Blood of Bulls or Goats, but by his own Blood he entered into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption, Hebr. 10.12. Without shedding of Blood there is no remission, Hebr. 10.22. Ye are come to the Blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel, Hebr. 12.24. According to the purification of the Blood of Jesus Christ, 1 Pet. 1.2. The Blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin, 1 John 1.7. Christ washed us from our sins in his Blood, Apocal. 1.5. But the other quality of an Ignominious Death is signified by the very Name of the Cross: for in that very punishment there is great ignominy: whence it is said, He suffered the Cross, having despised the shame, Hebr. 1.2. And by the name of Contempt, which Isaiah used, Isai. 53.3. Here by the by it may be observed, That not only in the places now alleged, and others like them, that either only or chief treat of the remission of sins, there is mention made of Death, Cross, Blood; but that in very many places the Apostles did profess they knew nothing, they taught nothing but Christ and him crucified, 1 Cor. 1.23. and 2.2. and that therefore the Gospel itself is by them called the Word of the Cross, 1 Cor. 1.12. Moreover, Christ appointed the Sacred Sacrament of his Supper not peculiarly for a Commemoration of his Life or Resurrection, but of his Death and the shedding of his Blood, 1 Cor. 11.26. Which things having been so often repeated, do manifestly show, that some proper and peculiar Effect should be attributed unto this Death and Blood; which Socinus cannot do: For the whole Life of Christ gave an Example of Holiness, more than his Death itself, which was completed in a short time. But the Confirmation of that Promise of Celestial Life, consists properly in the Resurrection of Christ, unto which Death is only as a way. So that the Scripture looking towards this, should have made mention of the Resurrection, not of Death; verily not so often, and with Marks of Emphasis adjoined. Socinus himself, lib. 1. cap. 3. endeavouring to show that the way of Salvation was confirmed by the Effusion of Blood, when he had taken away the true Cause, which we defend, could not substitute any other probable Cause of that Confirmation; neither could he bring any other true Difference, why that aught to be attributed to the Death of Christ only, and not to the Death of other Martyrs also. Neither can Socinus ever explain how Christ obliged God to us, (which he himself grants to be true in some sense) if God hath promised nothing for the shedding of Blood.  
The Form is the suffering of Punishment for our Sins; which Socinus, lib. 3. cap. 9 and lib. 2. cap. 4. stiffly denies. Wherefore we will briefly prove this very thing. The Hebrews, that they may signify that which the Latins call poenas pendere, to suffer punishment, they have no phrase more usual than this, far peccatum, to bear sin. Like unto which is an expression of the Latins, lucre delicta, to suffer sins, that is, the punishment of sins. If any do not discover the Blasphemer, he feret peccatum shall bear his sin, Leu. 5.1. Qui nuditatem Sororis sue retexit, peccatum suum ferto: He that hath uncovered his Sister's nakedness, let him bear his sin, Leu. 20.17. So Expiatory Sacrifices are said to bear the Iniquities of them that offer them, Leu. 10.17. because their Blood is for the soul of man, Leu. 17.11. Neither only conjunctly, but also separately, these words are found in the same sense. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to bear Judgement, is said Gal. 5.10. Ferre ob peccata, to bear for sins, Ezech. 18.20. And sin is said to overtake a man, that is, the punishment of sin. And by the same phrase Peter said, Christ carried up our sins in his Body unto the Gross, 1 Pet. 2.24. He could have said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he carried; but because he would also signify his ascent up to the Cross, therefore he said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he carried up, that is, he carried up in going, which doth diminish nothing from the said phrase, but adds something to it; therefore the Syrian translated it, portavit & ascendere fecit, he carried and made to ascend. Socinus, that he may weaken the strength of this place, first says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies he took away; but contrary to the nature and use of the word: for neither doth the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suffer that interpretation, neither hath any Greek Author so used that word. Also in the New Testament it no where occurs in that signification; but it signifies either to carry up, Luke 24.51. or to lead up, Matth. 17. Mark 9.2. And because the Sacrifices were carried into an upper place, that is, into an Altar, therefore they also are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be carried up, Hebr. 2.27. James 2.21. Whence also Christ himself is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have carried up himself, Hebr. 7.27. and we are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to carry up Praises or spiritual Sacrifices, Hebr. 13.15. And 1 Pet. 2.24. Socinus citys one place only, Hebr. 9.28. where he would have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to carry up sins, to be nothing else but to take away; but without Cause, and without Example, and the sense of the place not requiring it: For the two Comings of Christ are opposed the one against the other; the former, in which he did bear our sins, the other, in which he is to come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without sin; that is, not loaded, not burdened with any sins, but set at liberty, and freed from them. But these are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 opposite, to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without sin, and peccata auferre, to take away sins, but to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without sin, and peccatis oneratum esse, to be burdened with sins. Whence it appears, that in that place to the Hebrews also, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is either to carry up, to wit, unto the Cross, as in the place of Peter, (and that appositely, for here also is an allusion to Sacrifices, but the Cross was as an Altar;) or simply to suffer, as in Thucydides, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to suffer dangers. Therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies far, to bear, not auferre, to take away: which the Text of Peter itself proves. For the Discourse is not concerning any Benefit of Christ, but concerning his great Patience, which is showed, not by taking away, but by suffering. That Socinus adds, That with this sense whereby Christ is said to bear our sins, that which follows doth not rightly enough cohere, it is said without cause; for Peter doth manifestly declare, That Christ did so bear our sins, that he might deliver us also from punishment; whence he presently adds, By his wounds ye are made whole: But these cohere very well together: If Christ underwent such hard things, that he might obtain the pardon of sins, verily ye that have obtained it, aught to beware of sins in time to come. God hath given to us, that being freed from the hand of our Enemies, we should serve him in all holiness and righteousness, Luke 1.74. Behold! thou art made whole, sin no more, John 5.14. Ye are bought with a price, glorify therefore God in your Body, 1 Cor. 7.20. Neither doth Paul any other thing in the Seventh, and following Chapters to the Romans, but show that we ought to be stirred up by the great Benefits of God and Christ, to live holily; like unto that place of Peter (yea whither Peter certainly had an eye, as it also appears by the words following, Ye were healed by his stripes) is that of Isai. 53.11. My righteous Servant shall justify many, and shall bear their sins: In Hebrew it is [We avonotam how jisbal.]  
Now the word [avon] signifies Iniquity, and also the punishment of Iniquity, as 2 Kings 7.9. but the word [sabal] signifies to bear or sustain; and as oft as to bear is put with the name of sin, or iniquity, that in every Tongue, and especially in Hebraism, signifies to bear punishment: For indeed [nasha] sometimes signifies to take away; but [sabal] signifies not so: therefore here apparently Christ is said, that he will bear the punishment of them that are justified. This Phrase admits of no other Interpretation: neither doth it hinder that this bearing of iniquity seems to be put by the Prophet after death: for it is verily after death, not in time, but in order, as the Effect, the Cause existing together with it. But Socinus says that this word [sabal] being joined to sin, doth not always include some imputation, but that it is enough if it signify a man's being afflicted upon any occasion of another man's deed: He proves that by no Example; neither doth the Holy Scriptures speak so at any time. Yea also Greek and Latin Authors, when they use that Phrase, do always include imputation Socinus, for the confirming of this Exception, citys a place of Jeremiah, which is thus: Our Fathers sinned, and are not, and we bear their punishment: neither doth he suffer here any imputation to be understood. But by what Argument doth he prove that that Phrase signifies another thing here, than in all other places where it is put? Socinus himself is compelled to confess, that as oft as the Sons follow their Father's footsteps, not only their own, but their Father's sins are imputed unto them: for the Word of God is evident, Exod. 20.5. But that those, concerning whom Jeremiah speaks, were like their Fathers, that makes it evident, which follows in the Prophet, Woe to us that we have sinned, verse 16. Neither is this different from the intent of Jeremiah: for, that he may aggravate the Misery of those that then lived, he saith, That the punishment both of their own, and their Ancestors sins, redounds upon them: and that therefore the lot of their Fathers was much better than their lot, who being alike guilty, were yet taken out of life, before that those very bitter punishments heaped up, as if it were in the Treasure of Divine Wrath, were at length poured forth together. But though the signification of these words, far peccata, to bear sins, were ambiguous in Sacred Writings, yet both in this place of Isaiah, and in that of Peter, the joint mention of the Sufferings of Christ, and our Deliverance, would make the Interpretation certain. For to bear sins by suffering, and so, that others may be delivered from them, cannot signify another thing, but the undertaking of another's punishment. And in the same Isaiah, vers. 6. and 7. it is; God cast, or laid on him the punishment of us all: he is punished, and he is afflicted. Here Socinus moves every stone that he may wrest the genuine sense from the words; and deviseth a new Interpretation: God did by him, or with him, go against the iniquity of us all. But the Hebrew word doth manifestly contradict. [Hiphgiah] being of that Conjunction which signifies not a single, but twofold Action: wherefore seeing [Phaga] properly signifies to go against it follows that [Hiphgiah] signifies he made to go against, and by Metaphor he deprecated, because a person that deprecates, doth as it were interpose his Prayers. To deprecate here hath not place: for then God should be said to have deprecated for Christ; for that is the signification of this word, the Particle (Beth) following, Jer. 15.11. Neither doth fecit deprecari, he made to deprecate, agree here, both because [bo] on him, follows, when otherways it ought to have been said, He made him deprecate: and also because all things that next go before, and follow, pertain to Affliction, not to Deprecation. Therefore these words do not bear another sense but this; God did make the sins of us all occurrere illi, to go against him; that is, impegit, incussit, he inflicted, or he did cast upon him: Sin is required, exigitur peccatum, (that is, according to Scripture phrase) the punishment of sin. Et ipse affligitur, and he is afflicted.  
Here Socinus objects unto us that place of Leu. 16.21, and 22. where sins are said to be put upon the Goat of Atonement, and the Goat himself is said to carry the sins of the people into a waste Wilderness. For he thought that nothing is more manifest, than that it could in no ways be said that this Goat suffered punishment for the sins of the People: which, by what right he takes upon him, I see not. For verily Punishment taken in the general, befalls Beasts also. The blood of all your Souls will I require: Of every Beast will I require it, Gen. 9.5. When an Ox shall push a Man or a Woman that he die, let that Ox be stoned, Exod. 21.28. If any man lie with a Beast, let him be put to death, also slay the Beast itself, Leu. 20.15. The Earth was cursed with a Deluge for man's sake, Gen. 8.21. The Creature was subject to vanity, Rom. 8.20. Neither is there Cause, why Socinus should object that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Scape-Goat did not use to be killed; but that the shedding of blood, or death, was required for the remission of sins: For though the Scripture doth not expressly, declare, that that very Goat was thrown headlong from a high place in the Wilderness, and so slain, the Hebrew Interpreters agree about it; which though it were not so, yet what other thing did that driving into a waste Wilderness threaten, but a death, not at all natural, either of hunger, or the tearings of wild Beasts? Also the word [Nagash] is to be marked in Isaiah; for it is very certain that [Nagash] Schin having a point in the left-horn, doth properly signify exigere, to require, as appears 2 Kings 23.35. Zach. 9.8. but metaphorically is taken for opprimere, to oppress, therefore the Passive [Nagash] is either opprimitur, he is oppressed, or exigitur, he is required. Opprimitur, he is oppressed, hath no place here, because it follows in the same [vehou] Sentence, & ipse affligitur, and he is afflicted: whence it appears that this Verb is referred to another Noun, than that unto which the word affligitur, he is afflicted, is applied. Therefore it remaineth that that word should be taken properly, that it may signify exigitur, is required, and may be referred to the Noun immediately going before. Now to require sin, is, or can be nothing else but to require the punishment of sin; therefore the requiring of Punishment, and Christ's Affliction, are joined together.  
There went before in the same Prophet, these words; The Chastisement of our peace was laid upon him, and by his stripes we are healed. In the Hebrew Chastisement is called [Musar] which word signifieth not every Affliction, but that which hath a relation to Punishment, whether it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, exemplary, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, admonitory only; by which words of old Taurus the Philosopher did aptly distinguish the kinds of Punishment. And thence it came to pass, that any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 admonition, per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the figure Catachresis, was signified by the word [Musar.] But because the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rebuke, hath no place in Christ, especially seeing the discourse is concerning Afflictions, including Death, it remains that we should understand Affliction, that hath joined together with it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, exemplary punishment; for the use of that Hebrew word, is not found separated from all respect unto a fault. But here, if by the subject matter we understand the good of Impunity, it will appear that Christ's Punishment, and our Impunity, are very well opposed the one against the other: Though nothing hinders Reconciliation to be understood by the name of Peace, though there was no mention made of Enmity, which the matter itself, and the following words of the Prophet do abundantly declare to have went before. For neither did the Angels make mention of Enmity, when they proclaimed, that Peace was to come upon the Earth Luke 2.14. nor the Apostle, when he said, We have peace with God, Rom. 5.1. And as the Hebrews put Sin for Punishment, as it appears, besides other places now alleged, Zachar. 14.19. and Gen. 4.13. so also the same call him sin, who suffers the punishment; as also the Latins take piaculum both for the Crime, and also for him that suffers the punishment of the Crime. Whence it is, that instead of peccatum, sin, the Scripture calls the Piacular Host, or Propitiatory Sacrifice, Sin, Leu. 4.29. and 5.6. Therefore Isaiah following this form of Speech, said concerning Christ, [Tashim asham naphsho] he made his Soul sin; that is, he made his Soul obnoxious to the punishment of sin. Neither did Paul speak otherways, For God made him, that knew no sin, to become sin, that we might be the righteousness of God in him, 2 Cor. 5.2. It appears in the words of Paul, that in both Members the Adjunct is taken for the Subject. Socinus, that he may invalidate the authority of that place of Paul, by the word sin, would have to be understood, a man supposed by men to be a sinner: First without Example; for no where is the Hebrew or Greek word so taken. Moreover, Paul attributes this Action to God, that he made Christ sin: But yet that the Jews and others did judge of Christ, as if he had been a wicked and flagitious man, God is in no ways the Author of that thing: yea, on the contrary, by a Voice from Heaven, and by working Miracles, he did that which made the Innocency of Christ manifest unto all men. Moreover, that new Interpretation of Socinus, can in no ways agree to the words of Isaiah; which contain the like Phrase; for that which Paul said God did, Isaiah attributes the same to Christ, to wit, that he made his soul sin, or, that he made himself sin. Moreover, Paul opposeth sin and righteousness We are made the righteousness of God; that is, we are justified, or delivered from Divine punishment: but Christ, that that might come to pass, was made sin; that is, he suffered Divine punishment. There is also another Antithesis to be observed in these same words of Paul: for God made him that knew no sin, that is, who deserved no punishment, to become sin; that is, he would have him suffer punishment: Christ was innocent, not only towards the Humane, but also the Divine Law. Therefore the force of the opposition requires that he should also have suffered the punishment of the Divine Law. Moreover, it is a thing that daily comes to pass, that the Innocent are evil entreated by the Wicked: but here the Apostle observes some excellent thing. And what other thing can this be, but that God laid punishment on him that deserved it not. Not unlike those former places is that of Paul to the Galatians 3.13. Christ redeemed us from the Curse of the Law, being made a Curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is he that hangeth on a Tree; that the Blessing of Abraham in Christ Jesus might come unto the Gentiles. Here we have the less difficulty in understanding the sense of Paul's words, when he says, Christ was made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, a Curse, or Execration, because he himself interprets himself, and alleges Moses the Author of his saying, he shows that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Curse, he understands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Accursed. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Paul himself being Interpreter, is, he that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, under the Curse. Execration, saith Socinus, in this place is the very punishment of Execration: which is true. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Curse, in many places signifies the punishment proceeding from the sanction of the Law, 2 Pet. 2.14. Matth. 25.41. And here the mention of the Law being added, forbids the Curse to be otherways taken. And the same Socinus confesseth, That this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Curse, was in Christ the Cross itself. Therefore the Cross of Christ signifies punishment, and that is it, which we say. Perhaps Socinus will grant, that the Cross was a punishment, because it was laid upon Christ by Pilate the Judge in way of a punishment: But this doth not contain all that Paul said. For, that he may prove, that Christ was made liable to punishment, he citys Moses openly, saying, That those who are hanged (to wit, according to the Law of God) are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Accursed of God. Wherefore the same word also is to be supplied in Paul, citing Moses, and referring these words to Christ: as if he had said, That Christ was made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Accursed of God: that is, liable to the punishment inflicted by God, and that very ignominious. For the Apostles, when they refer the Passion of Christ to our uses, they do not therein look at the deeds of men, but at the fact of God himself; as is manifest by many places before mentioned.  
To all these things this also may be added, That Death itself, that is the destruction of that person, which is made up of a Body and Soul, inasmuch as it is inflicted by God, hath always some signification of punishment: Not that God hath no power otherways to inflict it upon man, (for he is Lord of the Creature) but because it seemed good otherways to his Goodness.  
That the state of this peculiar Controversy may be rightly understood; we deny not, that Man, when he was created, was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, earthly, who had a certain vital strength, but not a life-giving strength, as Paul teacheth us, 1 Cor. 15.45,46. and therefore that was the Condition of the Body, that it would have perished, unless God sustained it; yet we contend, that by the decree of God, he was not to die, if he had continued in Innocency. The nobleness and eminency of that Creature proveth this, as being the only Creature that is said to be made after the Image of God, that is, endued with a Mind and , which is the Foundation of his Dominion over other Creatures; for he cannot be Lord of other things, who is not Lord of his own Actions. Therefore this Excellency above other Creatures, is an Argument, that something more than a Temporal use was regarded in the Creation of Man. And now what is more clear than that Divine Word? If thou eatest, thou shalt die. Here the Discourse is concerning the Act of Death, whether it was to be violent, or without violence. Therefore Death itself would not have happened unto Man, unless the Condition of Sin had been. No less clear and general is that of Paul, The wages, that is, the punishment of sin, is death, Rom. 6.23. Before, he had said, By sin came death, and so death passed upon all men. All men, saith he, therefore he treats of the common event of all Mankind. Therefore by man, that is, by human fact, came death; and by man came the resurrection of the dead. As in Adam all die, (as many as die) so in Christ all shall be made alive, (as many as shall be made alive) 1 Cor. 15.21,22. Who reading these very words, sees not that this saying to the Corinthians is exactly answerable to that to the Romans? Therefore the Discourse is concerning Death, that is common to the Posterity of Adam, and from which they do rise again, which rise again. Wherefore also this place being compared with that to the Romans, we say the Discourse is here concerning Adam a sinner: for what he said here by man, there he said by sin. The Animal Condition of Adam is discoursed upon in Twenty Verses, and more, by the Apostle, on a very different occasion: for here Death is opposed to the Resurrection; but there the Qualities of the Body, at the first created, and afterwards raised again, are compared with one another: of which, that had joined with a natural possibility of dying, by the bounty of God, a possibility also of living: but this shall so have life in itself, that it shall be without any natural possibility of dying.  
Here I cannot omit the adding of an excellent place of the very excellent Writer of the Book of Wisdom, which though it is not in the Hebrew Canon, yet it hath a venerable Antiquity, and was always had in estimation among Christians. So then saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1.13. And next; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 2.23. God made not Death, neither doth he delight in the destruction of living Creatures: for he created all things to have Existence, and their Generations are healthful, and the Poison of destruction is not in them, neither is the dominion of Hell upon Earth: But Righteousness is immortal. But the ungodly with their hands and words, called it to them, and thinking it to be their Friend, were consumed, and made a Covenant with it, because they are worthy to have a portion with it. God created Man for uncorruption, and made him the Image of his own Deity; but by the Envy of the Devil, Death came into the World, and they have Experience of it that are on its side. Here he shows, that any kind of Death is understood, which Death God is said not to have created, nor to desire, to wit, with a will going before sin, in opposition to uncorruption, for the hope whereof Man is said to be created, and that hope is not obscurely declared to have been a part of the Divine Image, or at least a Consequent thereof. But Uncorruption excludes all Death, whether it is violent, or not violent. And what the Apostle said, That by Man and by Sin Death entered; this Author said no less truly, That Death entered by the Envy of the Devil. For all these Expressions signify the same Fact, to wit, That the first Sin of Man was committed by the Suggestion of the Devil. Neither doth it hinder, that this Author observes a certain special Effect of Death upon the Wicked; for Death having entered by the first sin, and gained power over all Men, gets a certain peculiar strength by the great and continual sins of every Man; in which sense sin is called the sting of death, 1 Cor. 15.56. Therefore those, from whom, after their death, all passage to life is shut up, are deservedly called the Confederates of Death, or its Bondslaves, and peculiar Possession. It might very easily be demonstrated, if this were the thing that is treated upon, that this was the constant Opinion, both of Jews and Christians, that any kind of death of a Man is a punishment of sin: so that the Christian Emperors, not without cause, disallowed that Opinion, besides others, in Pelagius and Celestius, that they said, That Death did not flow from the snare of sin, but that the Law of an unchangeable Appointment required it.  
But that we may gather the things that hitherto have been said, into one, because the Scripture saith, That Christ was chastised by God, that is, was punished; That Christ did bear our sins, (that is, the punishment of our sins;) That he was made sin, that is, subjected to the punishment of sin; That he was made a Curse unto God, or liable to the Curse, that is, the punishment of the Law: But the Passion of Christ itself, having been full of Torments, bloody and ignominious, is a very fit matter of punishment. Moreover, because the Scripture saith, That these things were inflicted on him by God for our sins, (that is, our sins so deserving) because Death itself is called the wages, that is, the punishment of sin; verily it cannot be justly doubted, that in respect of God, the Passion and Death of Christ was a punishment.  
Neither are the Interpretations of Socinus worthy to be regarded, which deviates from the constant use of words without Example, especially because no just reason hindereth to retain the signification of the words, which shall appear more evident afterwards. Therefore in God the punishment is actively, in Christ passively: yet to whose Passion a certain voluntary Action is joined, to wit, the undertaking of the Penal Passion.  
The end of the thing that is discoursed upon, according to the Intention of God and Christ, which being placed in act, may also be called an Effect, is twofold; to wit, a Demonstration of the Divine Righteousness, and the Remission of Sins, in respect of us, that is, our Impunity. For if you take the exacting of punishment impersonally, it's end is the Demonstration of Divine Righteousness; but if you take it personally, that is, wherefore Christ was punished, the end is, that we might obtain freedom from punishment. The former end is expressed by Paul, when he saith concerning Christ, Whom God hath appointed for a Propitiation in his Blood, for the demonstration of his Righteousness, for the pardoning the foregoing sins in the forbearance of God. Afterwards he adds, repeating almost the same words; To declare his Righteousness at this time, that he may be the justifier of him that is of the Faith of Jesus, Rom. 3.25,26. Here, next unto his Blood, that is, his bloody Death, is joined the end, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to declare his Righteousness. By this Name of the Righteousness of God, that Righteousness should not be understood, that God works in us, or which he imputeth unto us; but that which is in God: for it follows, That he may be just; that is, that he may appear to be just. This Justice of God, that is, Righteousness, according to its divers Objects, hath divers Effects. About the good or evil Deeds of a Creature, the Effect thereof, amongst others, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reward, unto which Paul having respect, said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, it is just with God, to reward Affliction to them that afflict you. And elsewhere, Every Transgression and Disobedience received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a just Recompense of Reward. And that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rom. 3.8. the Syrian translated it, Whose Condemnation is reserved for Justice. Therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Day of Wrath, and the Day of just Judgement is the same, Rom. 2.5. And it is said, That the last Judgement will be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Righousness, Acts 17.3. And elsewhere, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to judge in Righteousness, is severely to punish; which is showed by adding the word pugnare, to fight, and much more those things that follow a little after: Out of his Mouth shall proceed a sharp Sword, that he may smite the Nations; for he shall rule them with an Iron Rod; and he it is, who shall tread the Lake of the Wine of the Indignation and Wrath of Almighty God. Apoc. 19.11. and 15. So God is called just, and his Judgements just, because he severely punished sin, Apoc. 16.5,7. when also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Righteousness is called both that very punishing Justice of God, Acts 28.4. and also the Punishment brought in by it, 2 Thess. 1.9. Judas 7. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Righteousness of God is declared by Paul to be this, That those which do, or approve Evil, are worthy of Death, Rom. 1.31. his paronymas are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, punitor, a just Punisher, Rom. 13.14. 1 Thess. 4.6. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the requiring of punishment, Luke 21.22. 1 Thess. 1.8. 1 Pet. 2.14. the signification whereof is declared by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to reward, Rom. 12.19. Hebr. 10.30. We know that by the Name of Justice, often Veracity, and often also Moderation is understood. But because by that word, as hath been already showed by many Testimonies, also that property of God is expressed, which moveth God to punish sin, and which is demonstrated in the very punishment of sin; we say that this signification is proper to this matter; for divers times are opposed, before Christ, and Christ's time: To the former time is attributed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, peccatorum, the passing by of sins, which is also expressed by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not remission, but transmission, to which is rightly added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, forbearance, by which word also the Greeks call truce, because thereby, for a time, War is forborn. To this Transmission and Inhibition is opposed the Demonstration of such Justice, whereby God is just, that is, appears to be just. Of old, when God passed by most sins unpunished, his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rewarding Justice, did not enough appear. At length he shown what a just 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rewarder he was, when it pleased him that his own Son should die for this cause, That he might be a Propitiation for Mankind, and might Redeem all those that ever had believed, or that should afterwards believe in God. So the Apostle joined together the manifest declaration of the Grace, that is, the Goodness of God, which is conveyed unto Creatures, and of his Justice, which is the keeper of right order, and also of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 recompense: Verily, the very name of Blood, the name of Propitiation, and also of Redemption, do show that the Discourse here is not of the testifying of Goodness only: he joined also Obtaining with Application: Obtaining is by Blood, Application is by Faith. And that very Justice of God, of which we treat, is said to be made manifest by Faith, to wit, that Justice, by which the Blood of Christ is believed to have been shed for the appeasing of the Wrath of God. Which Faith doth wholly exclude all glorying of Works, and all confidence in the Law. This end, to wit, the demonstration of Divine Righteousness is also rightly gathered from the form of the thing concerning which we treat. For the end of punishment is the demonstration of justicia, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rewarding Justice about sins: also from the Antecedent Cause, which we shown above to be meritorious. But the moving Cause of any Action, cannot be meritorious, unless the End also be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to reward.  
The other end, as we said, is our Freedom from Punishment. This Paul said significantly; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Being justified by his Blood, we shall be saved from Wrath, Rom. 5.10. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Anger of God, as also Socinus acknowledged, signifies the desire (if it is allowable so to speak) of punishing, John 3.36. Rom. 1.18. and often the punishment itself, Mich. 7.9. whence it is expressed by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, destruction, Rom. 9.22. Hence the Law is said to work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wrath, that is, to bring forth punishment, Rom. 3.5. And the Magistrate is said to be appointed for a taker of vengeance on evil doers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for wrath, that is, for the inflicting of punishment, Rom. 13.4. and that he should be obeyed, not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, for fear of punishment, but also for conscience: But freedom from Punishment is opposed to Punishment. Punishment is Eternal Death, or a detention under Death, whose Sergeant is the Devil: who therefore having the power of Death, is said to be destroyed by the Death of Christ, Hebr. 2.14. for the mention of deliverance from the fear of Death, which follows, shows that the Discourse is here rather of the Impetration of Pardon, than of the Mortification of Sin. And Christ is called, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he that delivereth us from the wrath to come, 1 Thess 1.10. This same freedom from Punishment, by a very usual Phrase of holy Scripture, is called Remission of sins, which properly follows the Death of Christ, as many places show: Such as these are; This is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins, Matth. 26.28. We have in him redemption by his Blood, the remission of sins, Eph. 1.7. Col. 1.9. Without shedding of Blood there is no remission, Hebr. 9.22. Which places do interpret that place of Paul above mentioned; Being justified freely by his Grace, through the Redemption, which is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth, for a propitiation through Faith in his Blood, for a declaration of his Justice for the pardoning of the sins bypast, through the forbearance of God; for a declaration of his Righteousness, that he might be just, and the justifier of him that is of the Faith of Jesus: where he expressed the same things in many words signifying the same thing, Rom. 23,24,25,26. For as he expressed the demonstration of his Justice twice, and thirdly added, that God might be just, (that is, that he may appear just) which appertain to the former End: so he expressed the other End also, both by repeating the word Justification, and the word Redemption. Justification, as is known, in many places of holy Writings, but chief in the Epistles of Paul, signifies Absolution, which, sin being presupposed, consists in the remission of sins. Paul himself clearly explaining himself, chief Rom. 4.2. and 6. wherefore unto these places, which ascribe the remission of sins to the Blood of Christ, that place should be joined, which we just now cited, Being justified in his Blood, Rom. 5.9. Also those that attribute the washing away of sins to Blood or Death. Te Blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin, 1 John 1.7. For the purging of the Blood of Jesus Christ, 1 Pet. 1.2. Christ washed us from our sins in his Blood, Apoc. 1.5. For though to wash away, to cleanse, and the like words, may signify either to cause that sins may not be committed in time to come, or that being committed, they may not appear, yet the other Interpretation is more agreeable to the Phrase of Scripture. So to abolish sins, is expounded, not to remember sins, Isaiah 43.24. and to cleanse from Iniquity, is showed to be the same thing with forgiveing, Jer. 33.8. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that sins may be blotted out, hath evidently the same sense, Acts 3.19. And these are taken wholly for the same thing, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to forgive sins; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to cleanse from all inquity, 1 John 1.9. and elsewhere these are put as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, synonimous, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, to be cleansed, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that pardon may be, Hebr. 9.22. Wherefore also Socinus is forced to confess, that, in John's Apocal. cap. 1. vers. 5. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to cleanse, is attributed to Blood, deliverance from punishment is more rightly understood, than the cleansing of the Soul. To these may be joined that of Isaiah, just now cited: The chastisement of our peace was upon him; that is, his punishment procures us peace with God; concerning which peace the Angels speak, Luke 2.14. And that of the same Isaiah, By his stripes we are cured; that is, by his punishment we have freedom from punishment.  
By these Testimonies therefore it is manifest, that the impunity of our sins is the End of the Death of Christ, and also an Effect of the same Death. Socinus, who is not willing to acknowledge this Connexion of Death with the Remission of sins, performed unto us, brings others wonderfully different from the words and scope of the Scripture. But all these, that he hath here and there scattered in his Book, seem to be reducible to these four Heads.  
The first is, That Christ, when he preached that the remission of sins lies open to the Penitent, did not refuse Death, to give testimony to that Preaching. But this sense makes the Death of Christ an Effect of remission, more than remission of Death: For the Existence of a thing, is the cause of a Testimony, not contrariways. But the Scrripture says, that we obtain remission by Blood, Ephes. 1.7. Coloss. 1.14. And that Blood blots out our sins, 1 John 1.7. Also that the shedding of Blood is a thing Antecedent, without which there is no Remission, Hebr. 9.22. Moreover, if this Interpretation were true, the Martyrs also might be said to have shed their Blood for the remission of sins, and that we obtain remission by that Blood, when yet the Scripture gives this privilege to Christ only. Moreover, the Cause of the Killing of Christ, in respect of men, was not properly the preaching of Repentance and Remission of Sins, but that he called God his Father, making himself equal to God. John 5.18. and consequently that he did profess himself to be God. For which cause his Death gave properly a Testimony to this Profession, not to the preaching of Pardon. And also a Testimony concerning the Doctrine was given no less, but more by the Miracles, than by the Death of Christ. But no where is this Effect attributed unto Miracles, that by them we obtain Remission of sins.  
The second thing that Socinus brings, is, That Christ by his Death obtained the power of giving Remission. But Socinus himself overturns this Position, who showeth that Christ, living on Earth, had, and exercised this Power. But that which is, cannot be any more made mine. And lest any man should so mistake (which Socinus doth more hint at, than affirm) as if this Power of Christ had only respect to Punishments Temporal, and of this Life, it must be observed, That when Christ is said to have had power upon earth to forgive sins, the Effect is not restrained by that Addition on Earth, but the place of the Action is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 emphatically expressed. For it is also said to the Apostles, Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth, where though to lose is to declare to be loosed, yet that Expression, on the Earth, signifies only the place of the Action: for it follows, they shall be loosed in Heaven. For that is it, which Christ signified; that that Power, though so eminent, and Celestial, belonged to him, living on the Earth: Neither do the People wonder at any other thing, but that so great power was given to men, (that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by enallagy to one of the number of men) Christ himself also first forgives the sins of the man, that had the Palsy, before he takes away the Palsy, which was a Temporal Punishment; and manifestly distinguishing both Powers, he proves the one by the other, to wit, the invisible by the visible. Then Christ did not at length obtain the power to forgive sins by his Death; and consequently those say, which ascribe the Effect of the remission of sins to his Death, cannot be drawn to this sense. Moreover, the Scripture explains the way of the Connexion between Death and Remission, by the word Propitiation, and other such like words, which cannot be applied to the power of giving Pardon.  
The third thing is, That in the Death of Christ an Example of Patience and Obedience is proposed to us. But this Example, in some respect, pertains to Sanctification, and, that which follows it, Eternal Glory; but not any ways to the remission of sins: for Christ by his Patience and Obedience obtained no pardon to himself, as having no sin. Wherefore, when Christ is proposed for Imitation, that we keeping that way, which he went, may come to the same Mark, nothing would be more unseasonable, than to make any mention of remission of sins. And the Phrases of Scripture, Blood cleanseth us, By his Blood we have Remission, do utterly reject this sense.  
The fourth thing remains, which most pleased Socinus. So that in very many places he inculcates this, as the support of his Cause: and it is this, That the Death of Christ persuades us to that very thing, that is required for the obtaining remission of sins, to wit, Faith, or, as Socinus explains himself, the hope of obtaining Eternal Life. But verily, what is more disagreeable unto truth, than that so bloody a death of a most innocent man, doth of itself conduce unto this, that it may persuade us, that great Joys are prepared by God for us living holily. Wherefore Socinus seeing the absurdity of this Invention, saith, That the Death of Christ doth not this, but his Resurrection, and those things that followed his Resurrection: But, that it was requisite Death should go before. But if the Scripture had signified so, it would have mentioned perpetually the Resurrection, or rather the Exaltation unto Heaven, and sitting at the right hand of God, where forgiveness of sins is discoursed of, not Death and Blood, at least not so often, and in words so significant: For that so frequent and usual joining of Blood with Remission, signifies some Effect not common, but proper, not far remote, but near hand. For what Byways are these? The Remission of sins is granted unto none, but them that live holily; (for so speaks Socinus:) Faith, and a certain hope of reward, makes for holiness of Life: This Faith is begotten by the Example of Christ, raised from the Dead, and glorified for holiness of Life, (as Socinus would have it) Death went before that raising up: therefore rightly and fitly is Remission said to be obtained by the Death of Christ. Is not this it really, which he finds fault with in others; Alas! That the Pinetree was cut in the Pelian Wood! for that is brought for a cause, which is not some near thing, or at least not far distant; but that which is most remote from the Effect. What if this had been in one place of Scripture, it would perhaps have been less wonderful? But what man, that is in his right wits, can believe that the Scripture speaks so often so obscurely and so coldly? That Saying of Paul is very unlike, Christ was raised from the dead for our justification, Rom. 4.25. Which, that it may be explained, there is no need to fetch so long a compass of Socinus. For the Resurrection of Christ begets in us Faith and Reliance on God and Christ: to which Faith is promised Remission of sins. And this Series is manifestly showed Acts 13.33,38. Rom. 1.4. and 10.9. for Death is so far from being fit to beget Faith, that on the contrary, it most affrighteth men from that Faith. And therefore in preaching the Gospel the Apostles do always oppose the Resurrection to the Ignominy of the Cross, and the Misery of Death. But that by Death, and the shedding of Blood, which the Scripture frequently expresseth in this Argument, which is not properly a Cause of the Resurrection, but only an Antecedent, he would have the Resurrection it self to be expressed; What is it else but to name Night, that thereby Day may be understood? Moreover, if Death did not belong to the Remission of sins, except because of the Resurrection that followed, how could it have happened, that Remission of sins was very seldom referred to the Resurrection, but to Death in innumerable places? Now add this also, that Paul doth attribute to Death itself apart, that is, as it is abstracted from the Resurrection and Glory of Christ, the Effect of Redemption purchased. For he says, If, when we were Enemies, we were reconciled to God by the Death of his Son, much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his Life, Rom. 5.10. Death is opposed unto a glorious Life, and as Reconciliation is ascribed distinctly unto that, so is Preservation unto this. Reconciliation is obtained for Enemies by Death, as a Sacerdotal Act: being reconciled, they are kept by his Kingly Power, unto which Resurrection made access. So also elsewhere the same Apostle puts Reconciliation before Preaching, which begets Faith. God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself, not imputing their sins unto them; and did put in us the Word of Reconciliation: therefore we are Ambassadors for Christ, and, as if God were requesting by us, we beseech you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled unto God, 2 Cor. 5.19,20. Here a twofold Reconciliation is put; the former, which is declared by the Word: the other, that is made by the Word: that is the Reconciliation of Impetration, this of Application: that is before the Word, this is after the Word. We treat of that former, and do justly deny that it can be referred to the Ingeneration of Faith which comes by the Word. That also may be added John 3.16. where Christ is said to be given (to wit, unto death) that they who believe, may not perish. Therefore it is profitable for another thing than that they may believe. And verily if you please to attend, the same thing is not obscurely showed in that very place of Paul, which is by Socinus cited for to confirm his own Opinions, to wit, that, of which we discoursed: who was delivered (to wit, unto death) for our sins, and risen again for our justification. Because Sins are an evil thing, and Justification a good thing, it appears that the word propter, for, is not taken alike in both Members: and it is convenient that the final Cause should be expressed in the latter Member; if I am not mistaken, we sufficiently shown above, that in the former the Impulsive Cause is signified. Just as if I say, that a Medicine is taken for a Disease and for Health: Therefore Justification is the end proposed unto the Resurrection, to wit, by the Ingeneration of Faith, by the Confession of Socinus. Though verily I know not whether the Resurrection in this place is looked upon as an Argument to persuade Faith, or whether it rather signifies the whole glorious state of Christ, who hath this end proposed to himself amongst others, that the Preachers of the Gospel may be sent, and that their Endeavour may be promoted with a very plentiful Influence of the Spirit, and Faith being made after that manner, men may obtain the Remission of sins: for so said Christ himself; All Power is given to me in Heaven and in Earth: Therefore go ye and teach all Nations. Behold, I am with you always to the end of the World, Matth. 28.18,19,20. Before, as John saith, the Spirit was not (to wit) poured forth with that efficacy and abundance; the cause is added, because Jesus was not yet exalted to Glory, John 7.39. Paul also said of Christ, When he had ascended on high, he led Captivity captive, and gave gifts to men: He gave some Apostles, others Prophets, and others Evangelists, and others Pastors and Teachers to the perfecting of the Saints, Ephes. 4.8,12. But whether of these two ways you take it, it appears that some peculiar and is ascribed to the Resurrection, inasmuch as it is distinguished from Death. On the other side, it is ascribed unto Death apart, or deliverance unto Death, that it happened for sins: but that very thing is not where ascribed unto the Resurrection, and in this place it is not obscurely taken from the same. But the Death of Christ in this Affair is both to be separated from the Resurrection and from the Ingeneration of Faith; and in these places, which deduce the Remission of sins from the Resurrection of Christ, a certain distinct Effect is to be understood, which the very simplicity of the Words import, agreeing with other words of Scripture, which say, That Christ for our sins died a bloody death, and that the punishment of our sins was exacted of him; concerning which things we have already treated: and with those words of Scripture which testify not obscurely, That God was appeased and reconciled to us by the Blood of Christ; That his Blood was a price given for us; That Christ died in our stead and was our Propitiation; of which there will be occasion to speak afterwards.   

CHAP. II. How God should be considered in this Affair: and it is showed that he should be considered as a Governor.  
THe State of the Controversy being understood, and that Opinion being confirmed by Scriptures, on which the Faith of the Church is supported, that the Objections, which the Reason of Socinus, or rather the abuse of his Reason, furnish-him with, may be routed, it is requisite, that it should be understood, What is God's part or office in this matter to be discoursed of. Socinus confesses, That the Discourse is concerning Deliverance from Punishment. We add, That the Inflicting of Punishment is also treated of. Whence it follows, That God must needs be here considered as a Governor. For to inflict Punishment, or to Deliver a man from Punishment, whom thou mayest punish, which the Scripture calls to justify, is only the part of a Governor, as such, firstly and of itself: As for Example, Of a Father in a Family; Of a King in a Commonwealth; Of God in the Universe. Though this is manifest unto all, yet it may be easily proved, because Punishment is the last thing in Compulsion: but Compulsion belongs only to a Superior, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the higher Power; whence Seneca called Clemency the meekness of a Superior towards an Inferior in appointing Punishment. Neither doth it hinder that Revenge seems sometimes to be attributed to men private, and furnished with no superior Power. For that Revenge is either of fact, not of right, which is contrary to natural Justice itself; or it signifies a certain right belonging to some man not first and of itself, but by the concession of another; whence the Father of the ravished Maid kills the Ravisher, and any man kills the banished man; or it signifies not the Act of Punishment itself, but the requiring of the Punishment to be inflicted, either by God himself, or by another Governor. Unto which ways of revenging, so many ways of remission of sins or pardon are answerable, which both Scripture and common Speech attributes to private men.  
But this Assertion needs so much the less proof, because Socinus himself somewhere confesseth, That God should be looked upon as a Prince in punishing and absolving men; than which nothing more true can be said. Neither did James signify any other thing, when he said there is one Lawgiver, who can save and destroy, James 4.12. Therefore in this matter we have a new 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, habitude of God, which being found, it is easy to remove all others.  
First then, We grant this to Socinus requiring it, That here God should not be looked upon as a Judge appointed under a Law; for he that is such a Judge could not free the Offender from punishment, by translating the punishment upon another. Not because that of itself it is unjust, but because it agrees not with the Law, whereof he is chosen a Minister. Which Lactantius expressed in these words, concerning the Anger of God, Chap. 19 A Judge cannot give pardon to Offences, because he is subject to the Will of another: But God can, because he himself is the Decider of his own Law, which when he appointed, verily he took not away all power from himself, but hath liberty to forgive. Seneca says, well; Clemency hath a , not under a Condition, but judgeth according to justice and Goodness; for Equity belongs to a Judge tied to a Form of Law: but Clemency properly so called, belongs only to the highest Governor in every Community. The same Seneca bids a Prince think on this: Any man may kill against the Law, burr none can save against the Law but myself. Augustinus took notice of this distinction; It is appointed by the Judges, that it should not be lawful to repeal a Sentence given against a guilty person. Will the Emperor also be under this Law? For it is lawful to him only to repeal a Sentence, and absolve a person guilty of Death, and to pardon him. And Symmachus: For there is one condition of Magistrates, whose Sentences seem to be corrupted, if they are milder than the Laws; and there is another power of Sacred Princes, whom it becomes to mitigate the sharpness of a severe Law. Unto which also Cicero had respect, when he said for Ligarius to Caesar: I did not, I thought not; such Arguing useth to be before a Judge; but I say to a Father, I have erred, I did rashly, I repent; I fly to thy Clemency, I beg pardon of the fault, I beseech you that you would pardon.  
But Socinus, though in the place above-cited, he looks upon God as the highest Prince, yet in many places in all this act he attributes another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 habitude, to him, to wit, of a Party offended. And he would have every offended Party to be the Creditor of the Punishment; and therein to have such a power, as other Creditors have in things owing to them. Which power he often calleth by the name of Lordship: therefore he very often repeats, that here God should be looked upon as a Party offended, as a Creditor, as a Lord, putting these three as signifying the same thing. This Error of Socinus, because it is largely spread abroad through his whole Treatise, and may be said to be in this matter his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, chiefest lie, must be confuted accurately.  
That this may be performed, this Assertion may be put first. To punish, is not an Act belonging to the Party offended, as such, this is proved; because otherways the power of Punishment of itself would belong to every offended Party; which appears to be false; because we proved that to punish is an act 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Superiority. By the Confession of Socinus himself, when he says, That God should be looked upon as a Prince, whence another firm Argument ariseth; If God punisheth, and taketh away punishment as a Prince, than not as a Party offended: for the same thing cannot be attributed to two divers things as such. But at the same time we deny not, that God who punisheth sins, or lets them go unpunished, is rightly called the offended Party. But we deny that to punish, or let go unpunished, is attributed to him as an offended Party. For it is very well known, that a thing may be said of a man, that doth not agree to him as such: as a Counsellor of Law sings, not as a Counsellor of Law, but as a Musician. Lactantius observed this rightly. We rise to punishment, not because we are injured, but that Discipline may be preserved, Manners may be corrected, Licentiousness may be restrained. This is just Anger, which as it is necessary in man, so verily is it in God; from whom the Example came to Man. It is a received Rule, That no Man is a fit Judge in his own Cause: But this Rule is not of Natural Law, but Positive, and therefore not Universal. For it hath not any place in the highest Governors, under which name I also comprehend Parents, in respect of the care of the Family. Lawyers observe that Emperor's judge in their own Cause, ad l. & hoc Tiberius de Hoere. instit. This also may come to pass in Crimes, as in the Judgement of Treason, and in Wars, which for the Injury offered to the King, are proclaimed by the King. Of which thing there is a famous Example, 2 Kings ch. 10. Therefore Princes, though offended, but not as offended, punish Crimes, or let them go unpunished; for if they did that, as injured, than others, being injured, would have the same power, who nevertheless can neither punish the Offender, nor cause him to be unpunished. Again, if it should belong to Princes, as offended, to punish or let go unpunished, than they would have no power to punish Crimes, in which they were not offended; the contrary whereof Reason and Experience showeth. And lest Men should be mistaken by this Error, as if evil doers were therefore punished by a Prince, because they hurt the Commonwealth, whereof he is Governor; we see, that Subjects also, who have grievously offended out of the Territory, and against a foreigner are rightly and with praise punished. Whence it manifestly appears, That the power of punishing doth not belong to an offended person as offended, because, the Offence being committed, this power doth not immediately follow, neither is it removed when the Offence is removed: But on the contrary, the same right belongs to a Superior as a Superior; for as soon as you put Superiority, you also put the power of punishing, and that being removed, you remove it. But whatsoever is said of the power of inflicting punishment, it is necessary the same should be understood concerning the power of giving freedom from punishment; for these things are by a natural Bond joined together. Perhaps Socinus was mistaken, because smetimes in Sacred Writings, and amongst others, in the Lord's Prayer, the Example of God forgiving sins is proposed unto us, that we also being offended, may forgive others their sins. But he ought to have considered, that Examples are taken not only from things that are the same, genere proximo, in the next kind, but also from those things that have some resemblance, chief because some selfsame name is put upon things, though divers in their next kind, because of resemblance. So Christ forbids us to judge, to wit unmercifully, lest we ourselves also be judged: and adds, That with what measure we meet unto others, with the same it shall be measured unto us, Math. 7.1,2. where that former judging in its whole kind differs from the other: For the former is the judgement of Liberty; the other the judgement of Power. After the same manner it is a far other thing in God, and in other Governors, to forgive sins, and another thing in private persons offended by another: for to punish is opposed to that, but to the other to require punishment, or wish it, or also to complain, Coloss. 3.13. therefore they differ intrinsically, but extrinsecally in some respect they agree; for the moving Cause to both is Bounty or Love to Mankind, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: but the Effect is, that he, who hath sinned, is freed from some Inconvenience, either really, or at least, as much as lies in the forgiver; which Agreement is sufficient that the Example may have its own efficacy.  
This may be the other Assertion: Naturally the offended Party, as such, hath no power in punishment. This is somewhat more than what the first Assertion had gathered. For there we denied that the very act of punishing belongs to the offended Party: Here we deny that any power belongs unto it, not only to exercise the act of itself, but also to oblige another to exercise: that is, that the Party offended is not really a Creditor in punishment, which yet Socinus thinketh, and often repeats it, as a most certain thing. Here I understand a Creditor, not in a strict signification, according to the Original of the word, him that hath given credit to another man's word; but more generally, Creditors are they to whom Debt is due for any Cause. And it is thus proved, that it is true, that we say: It is very well known that Right is twofold, Natural or Positive: wherefore it is necessary that all Debt should arise hence or thence. Naturally Right consists in the Adequation of things among themselves; such therefore also is Natural Debt. But Positive Right is that which proceeds from a free act of the Will: which is twofold, Contract, and Law-Contract, is an Effect of that Power, that any man hath over himself, and his own things: But Law is an Effect of that Power, which any man hath over another man, and another man's things. Here we treat not of Positive Death; therefore we add the word Naturally: the Cause of which thing we shall explain afterwards. Now by Nature nothing else is due to me by thy Deed, neither indeed can be due, but an equality according to the thing; that is, that as much as I want by thy means, so much should be restored: It may be called by this one word, Indemnity or Restitution. Hence Aristotle rightly called a Creditor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, him that had less. And this hath place both in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 willing, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unwilling receivings, as the same Aristotle observes. For as thou art obliged to restore that which was lent or entrusted, so also the thing that was taken away by Theft. And in this sense we may naturally become Creditors through a fault. Neither hath that place only in these faults, in which the receiving of a Corporal thing is interposed, but also in other facts hurtful to a man: So he that hath wounded another man, ought both to pay Rewards to the Physicians, and the Charges laid out for the Cure, and Damage of Workmen. Some have wondered that Aristotle did put Manslaughter also amongst 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Exchanges, in which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a justice of making right is exercised. But Eustathius well observed, That that comes to pass no other way, but because there useth to be some Recompense made unto the Wife, Children or Kinsmen of the slain man. So also he who hath hurt the Good Name of another by a Lie, aught, by the Profession of the Truth, to make up what he detracted from his Credit. By all which it appears, that what is naturally due through Faults, is different from Punishment. For the Cause of that natural Debt is first, and of itself not the viciousness of the Act, but because some thing is wanting to me: for though it is absent without a Fault, as in a thing entrusted, yet no less is Restitution due to me. But the cause of the Punishment is the viciousness of the Act, and not because I want something. For though no man wants any thing, the Act will be rightly punished, as in great Crimes, which were only begun, and were not completed. There is also another difference, no less remarkable, that the Nature of a thing itself determines the manner and quantity of the Restitution. Punishment, though in its own kind it hath a Natural Cause in some sense (as we shall say afterwards) yet it cannot be determined, but by a free Act of the Will. Add this also, that Punishment, inasmuch as it consists in speaking, or doing, is not due ordinarily before Condemnation, but Restitution in all respects is due. The Debt of Restitution passeth unto the Heir, the Punishment passeth not. Which I judge requisite to mention only for this Cause, lest any should rashly confound that which is due to the offended with Punishment. But yet it is true, that by a positive Law, as also by a Contract way may be made, that a Creditor may obtain a right for Punishment, which then also the Laws distinguish from the pursuit of a thing, or of damage, L. si pignore parag. cum furti d. de furtis instit. de lega Aquilia parag. and in these words. But this useth for the most part to be appointed in pecuniary punishments, which not only bring Damage to him, who did the hurt, but also Gain to him that was hurt. But in Corporal punishments, in which there is no true Gain of the person that was injured, this is scarcely exercised. And therefore we see Kings, and other chief Governors, forgive punishment to the Guilty, against the will of the Party wronged, commanding them only to make Restitution of the Damage; which no man judgeth unjust. But this would be unjust if punishment were due to the Party wronged, especially where no necessity of the Commonwealth required remission. Wherefore that lesser Magistrates cannot remit Corporal punishments, that comes not to pass for any power of the person injured in punishing (for they could not punish any thing the more with the consent of the offended person) but because the Law of the Superior hath not granted unto them that power, yea, hath expressly denied it: which should likewise be understood concerning Kings being compared with God, in those Crimes which the Divine Law hath commanded indispensably to be punished.  
These things make for this, that it may appear, that God also being offended with us, is not properly a Creditor in punishing: for he that affirms that, relies either on that Right which proceeds from the things themselves, or that Rght which is constituted. We have sufficiently showed, as I think, That the offended person is not a Creditor in the punishment, by that Right which proceeds from the things themselves. But a constituted Right, not whereby punishment, but whereby such a credit of punishment may be introduced, is neither alleged, nor if it be alleged, can it be proved: neither can any reason be given, why it should have been so appointed. Some body will perhaps object, That God forgiving the punishment of sinners, is somewhere compared with a Creditor giving up his own Right, as Matth. 18.35. But as we shown above, Comparison doth not require that things should agree genere proximo in their next kind, but is contented with any similitude: So Christ washing his Disciples feet, gave an Example to his Disciples, that as he did, they should also do; that is, that they should serve one another. But the resemblance of God forgiving sins, and of a Creditor's yielding up his own Right, is greater than the resemblance of the same God forgiving sins, and an offended person forgiving offences, concerning which resemblance we just now discoursed. For the Acts of God and the Creditor's agree, not only in the moving Cause, which is Bounty, and the Effect, which is f●eeing from Misery or Trouble, but in that also that in both some right goes before in God to punish, in the Creditor to require the Debt, and on both sides there is a certain Dissolution of the Obligation that was before; though in the Obligation itself, as also in the Dissolution, there is something unlike which, though that Example doth not properly belong to the thing, to which it is brought, cannot wrong the Resemblance or Parable.  
This may be the Third Assertion: The right of punishing in a Governor, is not either the right of absolute Lordship, or the right of the thing credited. This is proved, first, from the End, which useth best to distinguish Faculties: For the right of absolute Lordship, as also the right of the thing credited, is procured for his sake that hath that power or right; but the power of punishing is not for the sake of the punisher, but for the sake of some Community; for all punishment hath the common good proposed, to wit, the Preservation of Order and Example; so than it hath not the nature of being desirable, but from this end; whereas the power of Lordship, and of the thing credited, are of themselves desirable. In this sense God saith, That he delights not in the punishment of them that are punished.  
Again, It is never contrary to Justice to give up the right of Lordship, or of the thing credited; for this is the nature of Property, that it is as lawful to use it, as not to use it. But to let some sins go unpunished (to wit, of them that repent not) would be unjust in a Governor, yea in God himself, as Socinus confesseth. Therefore the right of punishing is not the same with the right of Property or Credit. Moreover, no man is called just for that, and is praised upon the account of Justice, because he useth his own Property, or because he requires the Debt. But any Governor, and God himself also is called therefore Just, and Praised, upon the account of Justice, because he forgives not punishment, but exacts it severely. Just art thou, O Lord, because thou hast so judged, Apoc. 16.5. which was proved already in many places.  
Again, The diversity of Virtues ariseth from the diversity of Objects. But the Virtue whereby we give up our Property, or our Debt, is called Liberality, not Clemency: but that, whereby freedom from punishment is granted, is not called Liberality, but Clemency. Perhaps some man may ask, seeing punishment is said to be owing, Who is here the Creditor? for a Debtor can scarcely be understood, where there is no Creditor. But it must be observed, that the word debere, to owe, doth not always signify a Relation between two persons. For oftentimes Debeo hoc facere, I ought to do this, signifies no other thing; but it is convenient that this thing should be performed by me, without respect to another person. So Debeo poenam, I own punishment, that is, I am worthy of punishment, and I am absolutely obliged to suffer it, but not Relatively in respect of this man, or that. Therefore it is the same sense in what Commonwealth, or under what Governor any man suffers the punishment of a Crime, for he shall be equally delivered amongst all men; which would not be so, if there were a certain Creditor, as of other things, so also of punishment: For payment made to him only, not to others also, except by his Command, would free the Debtor. The contrary, for the most part appears in Reward: for it is rightly said, a Reward is owing to him: but the certain person that owes it (if you lay aside the Positive Law) doth not appear. For if any man say, There is a certain Commonwealth that owes a Reward, because it received a Benefit, that man will not distinguish Favour from Reward. Experience itself teacheth, that those men also are honoured with Rewards by Governors, who have profitted, not their own Commonwealth in particular, but Mankind, as Inventors of things profitable for the common good; yea, also we see Rewards given to Counsels nobly undertaken, though success hath been wanting, and thereby no profit redounded unto any man. Therefore neither is there here any relation between definite persons, such as in that kind of owing, which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of mutual Exchanges. But if any man desires something in punishment to be given him, that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, analogical to a Creditor, perhaps it will not be said amiss, that the order of things and the public good is in the place of a Creditor; the dispensation of which Order and Good is permitted to the Government; for this seems to be signified by that Proverbial Speech: It is for the Public Good, that Crimes should be punished. And hence it comes to pass, that when in other Causes the Judge exerciseth Judgement between two Parties, oftentimes in the Cases of Crimes the accused Person appears, the Accuser appears not; because Order itself, or the Public Good, is as it were in the place of an Accuser: which the Scripture also seems to intimate, when it saith, That sin crieth against the sinner. And where a man acts for punishment, he acts either as any man (as in those places where Accusations lie open to all men promiscuously) or as appointed for this thing by the Law; which happens in those places which have Accusers publicly constituted: Both of which is a certain token, that by nature and really there is not here any definite Adversary, and as it were a Requirer of Punishment.  
Another Question follows, What is the force of that word, when any Governor is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to forgive, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to pardon sins, or, which is the same, the punishment. For many being deceived by this word, have thought, that here some Property or Debt goes before, in which they are much deceived: For the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, properly signifies to remove from a man's self; and so it is taken Matth. 4.20. and elsewhere often: whence the Metaphor being taken, it signifies both to forsake, and let go, and permit, but most frequently to have no regard of a thing; which the Latins signify by a like Expression Missum aliquid facere; therefore the Greek Scholiasts expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to neglect. So it appears this word is taken Matth. 15.14. 18.12. 23.23. Mark 1.8. So also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is peccata missa facere, to let sins pass; because elsewhere the Scripture, further following this Translation, calls it peccata in mare projicere, to cast sins into the Sea, Mich. 7.19. So also the Latin Poets say, that those things which they signify are put out of care, Ventis tradi in mare raptanda, are delivered to the Winds to be violently carried into the Sea. Wherefore as these things are opposed missum aliquid facere, to let a thing pass, and retinere, to retain it, so are opposed to one another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Therefore missa facere peccata, to let sins pass, as also delere peccata, to abolish sins, and tegere, to cover them, is the same thing that elsewhere is more plainly expressed, not to remember, Jer. 31.34. But not to remember, as the Latin ignoscere, is not to be willing to punish. Wherefore, as in these words, not to remember, to cover, to abolish, not to be willing to retain, there is not the signification of Lordly Right or Debt, so neither in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But because that word that signifies to let pass, is general, therefore it is also applied to those things that we have in our Property, and to Names and other things by the like right. So also the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 belongs to all kinds of gratifying. Christ unto the blind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gave sight, Luke 7.21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, It was given to you to suffer for Christ. Phil. 1.29. So also the Judge, that for the sake of another Condemns or Absolves a man, is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to give him to another man, Acts 3.14. 25.11 and 16. All which signify, that no Property or Debt is necessarily signified by that word. Concerning the Latin words, donandi, condonandi, remittendi, of giving, forgiving, pardoning, it is less necessary that we should be solicitous, because they are not extant in Holy Scripture; and yet it is easy to give an account of them; for that hath happened unto those words, that hath happened unto many other, yea almost all that they are brought from, like things to like things. Donare, to give, properly is to make that freely another man's, which was his own by Property. Punishment therefore is not properly given; for what is given exists before, and afterwards remains: Punishment was neither before it was given, and by giving it is made not to be. But herein is the similitude, that as the Giver hath right in the thing, so hath the Governor in punishment, but not the same right, or equally free: For the right of Property (as we said before) is for the sake of the Owner; but the right of Punishment, for the sake of the Common Good; the dispensation whereof, as of other common things, belongs to the Governor. The second Agreement is in this, that both in Donation the right of the Giver, and in granting freedom from Punishment, the right that was the Governor's to punish, is taken away. The third is, That both Donation and Granting of freedom from Punishment, proceeds from the same Fountain of Bounty, and profits another. Neither only here, but also elsewhere often the word giving is translated to those things in which Lordly Power hath no place: So a man is said donari, to be gifted by a Magistrate, Civitate, with the Privileges of the City, vacation, with vacation, honore, with honour, proemio, with Reward. So Seneca said, moram donare, to give delay, for auferre moram, to take away delay for the sake of a man: So we are said to give our time to others. But remittere signifies originally, as the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to remove from himself; so a Tree let's go the Bark, remittit librum, a Horsman let's go the Bridle; so the Ears are remitted, aures remittuntur, and by translation, custodia, custody, disciplina, discipline, animus, the mind: and in many places remitti and intendi are opposite. Hence the Debt is said remitti, when there is no account made of it; and so Punishment. Neither is that word applied to Punishment for Debt, nor to Debt for Punishment; but to both for another thing, in which those agree with one another. It may be added, that in some sense it may be said that Punishment is owing to a man; not properly, because no man here is really a Creditor, but for some resemblance: For, because, as the Creditor hath power of exacting the Debt that is due to him, so the Governor hath power of punishing, and the Accuser of requiring Punishment: Therefore sometimes we are said catachrestically to owe Punishment, either to a Governor, as to God, or to an Accuser, as to the Devil; though neither is the Devil injured if Punishment is not inflicted on a man, neither doth it consist with the Justice of God to remit in infinitum, infinitely any kind of Punishment; neither of which can have place in real Creditors.   

CHAP. III. Of what manner is the Act of God in this Business, and it is showed that it is a Relaxation of the Law, or Dispensation.  
THE Part which God undertakes in this Business, having been examined, it will be easy to give some Name to the Act itself. And first, because God is here to be looked upon, as we have proved, as a Governor, it follows that this Act is an Act of Jurisdiction generally so called. Whence it follows, that the Discourse is not here of Acceptilation, taking a Debt for paid, as Socinus thinks, for that is not an Act of Jurisdiction. That its own Genus may be more nearly attributed unto this Act, the Act itself may be considered, either with relation to the Divine Sanction, or as Modern Lawyers speak, the Penal Law, or without that relation; which we therefore add, because, though no Law had expressed Punishment, yet naturally the Human Act itself, whether having an intrins●…al pravity from the unchangeable nature of the thing, or also extrinsical for the contrary Command of God for that very Cause deserves some Punishment, and that a heavy one; that is, it was just, that man, being a sinner, should be punished: If we consider it thus, the Act of God, of which we treat, will be the Punishment of one, to procure freedom from punishment to another; concerning the Justice of which. Act we shall presently discourse. But if furthermore, we look back to the Sanction, or the Penal Act, the Act itself will be a way to Indulgence, or a Moderation of the same Law, which Indulgence at this day we call Dispensation, which may be defined an Act of a Superior, whereby the Obligation of a standing Law about certain Persons or Things, is taken away. This is the Sanction; Man eating of the forbidden fruit, shall surely die, Gen. 2.17. where, by one kind of sin every kind of sin is signified, as the same Law expresseth, being more clearly explained; Cursed is he that continueth not in all the Precepts of the Law, Dur. 27.26. Gal. 3.10. But by the word Death and Curse in these places, we understand chief Eternal Death. Therefore it is the same sense, as if the Law had been expressed after this manner; Let every man sinning bear the Punishment of Eternal Death.  
Therefore there is not here the Execution of that Law; for if God should have executed the Law, no sinner could have been saved from the Punishment of Eternal Death. But now we know that there is no Condemnation to them that believe, because they are delivered from Death, Rom. 8.2. Gal. 3.31. Moreover, this act is not an Abrogation of the Law; for a Law, that is abrogated, hath no power of binding. But Unbelievers are yet subject to the same Law: Therefore it is written, that the wrath of God abides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on them that believe not, Joh. 3.36. and that the wrath of God comes upon them to the uttermost, 1 Thess. 2.16. Also the Interpretation of the Law is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to Moderation, for that Interpretation shows, that some Fact or Person hath not been comprehended under the Obligation of the Law; as the Works of Religion and Mercy were never comprehended under the forbidding of working on the Sabbath, Matth. 12.5. and 6. But all men (as having been shut up under sin, Rom. 11.32. Gal. 3.22.) yea those also that are delivered, by nature, or of themselves, are the Sons of Wrath, Eph. 2.3. that is, they were obliged to the Sanction of the Law; therefore the Obligation is not declared to be none: But this is the business, that that Obligation which was, may be taken away; that is, that there may be a Relaxation or Dispensation of the Law.  
Here it may be asked, Whether that Penal Law is relaxable? For there are some Laws unrelaxable, either absolutely or upon Conditition, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The absolutely unrelaxable, are those, of which the opposite contains an immutable pravity in itself, by reason of the nature of the thing itself: As for Example, the Law, which forbids Perjury, and bearing false Witness against a Neighbour; for as we say, that God cannot lie, Hebr. 6.18. or deny himself, 2. Tim. 3.13. so no less rightly shall we say, That God cannot do, or approve evil Actions, or grant a power to do them. But Laws unrelaxable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, upon Supposition, are those that are made by a definite Decree, which the Scripture calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unchangableness, or unrepentableness of Will, such as is the Law of damning them, that are not willing to believe in Christ, Hebr. 3.18. but all Positive Laws are absolutely relaxable: neither should men fly to an hypothetical necessity by a definite Decree, when there is no sign appearing of such a Decree. But that some are afraid, lest if we grant that, we do an injury to God, as if we made him mutable; in that they are greatly deceived: for the Law is not something Internal in God, or the very Will of God, but a certain Effect of his Will. But it is very certain, that the Effects of the Divine Will are mutable; neither doth God in promulgating a Positive Law, which he would at sometime relax, signify that he willeth another thing than he really willeth. For God seriously showeth, that he wills that the Law should be ratified, and oblige, yet retaining the power of relaxing, which is joined to Positive Law of its own nature, neither can it be understood by any sign to be abdicated of God. Verily it is another thing, if there adhere to a Popositive Law, either an Oath or Promise, both of which are observed, Hebr. 6.18. for an Oath is a sign of the immutableness of the thing to which it is added, Psal. 95.11. 110.4. Hebr. 3.11. 6.17. 7.21. And a Promise gives power to a Party, which cannot without injury be taken from it: Therefore though to promise is free, yet there is not a freedom to break Promises; therefore that aught to be referred to those things that have immutable pravity in themselves. Therefore God cannot do this, who is therefore called faithful, because he keeps his Promises, 1 Thess. 5.24. Therefore let us see whether there is in the said Penal Law any thing that utterly disallows Relaxation.  
And first, it may be objected, That it is just naturally, that the Guilty themselves be punished with such a punishment as is answerable to their Crime: and therefore that it is not subject to , nor is relaxable. That this Objection may be answered, it must be known that unjust doth not follow of any denial of just, no not at that very time when the same Circumstances are put: for as it doth not follow, if a King should be called Liberal, who gave to some Man a thousand Talents, that he should therefore not be Liberal if he gave them not; so it is not perpetual, that that which is performed justly, cannot be omitted, but unjustly. Now a thing is called natural, as in Physics, so in Morals, either properly, or less properly. Natural in Physics properly, is that which necessarily coheres to the Essence of every thing; as for a living Creature to have sense: but less properly that which is convenient, and as it were fitted for any Nature; as for a man to use his right hand. So then in Morals there are some things properly natural, which follow necessarily from the relation of the things unto rational Natures, as that Perjury is unlawful; but some improperly, as that a Son succeeds the Father. Therefore that he that hath offended, deserves Punishment, and therefore is punishable, this follows necessarily from the relation of the sin and sinner to the Superior, and it is properly natural. But that any sinner should be punished with such a Punishment as is answerable to the Fault, is not neceslary simply, and universally. Neither is it properly natural, but agreeable enough unto Nature; whence it follows, that nothing hinders why the Law commanding this same thing should not be relaxable. The sign of a definite Decree or Irrevocability, appears not in that Law, of which we Discourse; neither is it a promising Law; therefore none of those things hinder a Relaxation; for it should not be admitted, that a threatening should be equallized to a Promise: for by a Promise some right is acquired to him, to whom the Promise was made. But by threatening, only the merit of Punishment in the sinner, and the right of punishing in the Threatener, are more openly declared. Neither is it to be feared, lest something be detracted from the Veracity of God, if he doth not fulfil all his Threaten: for it must be understood, that all threaten that have not with them a sign of Irrevocability by their own nature, do diminish nothing of the right of the Threatener to relax, as before was declared: and it appears manifestly by the Example of the Divine Clemency towards the Ninevites. It must not be here omitted, that the ancient Philosophers by Natural Light judged, that no matter was more relaxable than Penal Law. Therefore Aristotle says, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And Sopater in an Epistle to Demetrius saith so: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which is called moderate Justice, comfortably interpreting the austere voice of the Laws, seems unto me an innocent pretence of the true and free Graces: but correcting Justice in mutual Exchanges, wholly shuns the nature of the Graces. But that which consists in Accusations, doth not abhor the meek and courteous face of the Graces. It appears by these things, which hitherto have been said, that that Positive and Penal Law of God was dispensable. But this hinders not, but that there were certain Reasons, which might dissuade (that I may stammer after humane manner) this Relaxation. And these may be taken either from the nature of all Laws, or from the proper matter of the Law. It is common to all Laws, that by relaxing something seems to be taken away from the Authority of a Law. It is a property of this Law, that though that Law, as we said, hath not an inflexible Rectitude, yet it is very agreeable to the Nature and Order of things: from which things it follows, That the Law was not to be wholly unrelaxable, but not easily, nor for a light Cause. And the only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, infinitely wise Lawgiver did according to that. For he had a very weighty Cause, when Mankind fell into sin, to relax the Law; because if all sinners had been to be given up to Eternal Death, two very beautiful things had utterly perished out of the World; on men's part Religion towards God, on God's part the Testimony of his special Bounty towards Men. Neither did God, in relaxing the Law, observe Causes only, and that very weighty ones, but also did set a singular Bounds to the Relaxation, concerning which there will be a fit place to Discourse afterwards.   

CHAP. IU. Whether it is unjust that Christ should be punished for our sins? And it is showed that it is not unjust.  
THE Arguments whereby Socinus goes about to disprove this Doctrine, having not been placed by him in a right enough Order, seems to us that they ought to be digested in this manner: That the first rank be of those Reasonings, which gather that That which we defend to have been performed, is unjust. The second, of those that deny there was cause for so doing. The third, of those which deny that God did that which we assert. For if the thing itself hath Unrighteousness in it, in vain is the Cause thereof sought for, because there can be no reasonable Cause of that which is unjust: In vain also is it disputed, Whether it hath been? because no unjust thing can be done by God. Also the Examination of the Cause, because by nature it goes before the Question of the Fact, should also first be handled: therefore that we may come to the Question of Just and Unjust, first, these things are to be separated, Whether it was just that christ should be punished for our sins? And if that could any thing Conduce to obtain a pardon for us? For this latter must be referred to the second rank, that disputes of the Cause of the Fact: but it belongs not properly to this first. For though such a Cause of Punishment had not been, it would not thence follow, that some Injury is contained in the Punishment. But it seems that an Injury may be sought, either in the Matter itself, that is, in the very heavy Afflictions and Death compared with the Innocency of him who suffered those things; or in the Form, that is, in the Punishment compared with other men's Sins, as the meritorious Cause. Therefore we shall show, that there is Injury in neither.  
First then, Socinus confesseth, That it is not unjust that Christ, most Innocent, should suffer from God very heavy Punishments, and Death itself that hence no help can come to his Cause. And the thing itself demonstrates the same very evidently: For Sacred History shows, that Christ suffered very grievous things, and that he died also. The Scripture no less evidently says, that God did this very thing. But without blaspheming the Sacred Deity, it cannot be denied, that God doth nothing unjustly. Therefore passing over to the other part, I affirm, That it is not simply unjust, or against the nature of punishment, that a man should suffer for other men's sins. When I say unjust, it is manifest that I speak of unjustice, which riseth out of things, not which riseth out of Positive Law, as whereby Divine Liberty cannot be diminished. I prove this that I said; Exod. 20.5. and 34.7. God visits the Iniquities of the Fathers upon the Sons, Nephews, and Nephews Children. Our Fathers sinned, and we bear their punishment, Lam. 5.7. For the Fact of Cham, Canaan is subjected to a Curse, Gen. 9.25. For the Fact of Saul, his Sons and Nephews were hanged, God approving of it, 2 Sam. 21.8,14. For the Fact of David 70000 perish, and David cries out, I have sinned, and done wickedly, but what have these sheep done? 2 Sam. 24.15. and 17. So for the Fact of Achan his Sons are punished, Jos. 7.24. and for the Fact of Jeroboam his Posterity, 1 King 14. These places manifestly show that some are punished by God for other men's sins. He that hath time, may see Chrysostom Homil. 29. on Gen. chap. 4. Tertullian against Martion.  
Socinus objects that in Ezechiel, The Soul that hath sinned, it shall die; The Son shall not bear the Iniquity of the Father, neither shall the Father bear the Iniquity of the Son. But in these words God teacheth not what he must necessarily do, but what he hath decreed freely to do. Therefore it doth no more follow hence, that it is wholly unjust, that the Son should bear any punishment of his Father's fault, than that it is unjust that a sinner should die. The place itself proves, That God doth not here discourse of a perpetual and immutable Law, but of the ordinary Course of his Providence, which he professeth he will after that time use towards the Jews, that he may break off all occasions of Calumny.  
Neither is that more to the purpose that is written Deut. 24.16. Let not the Fathers be put to death for the Sons, nor the Sons for the Fathers; but let every man be put to death for his own sin. Of which also there is mention made 2 Kings 14.6. for this Law is in part Positive, whereunto God is not tied, as having no where made that Law to himself; neither indeed can he be tied to any Law. Also the diversity of the Reason is manifest, because the power of Men is narrower than that of God; which shall be more clearly explained afterwards; though now also I may intimate, that the abuse of Power is feared in men, but it is not feared in God.  
Socinus replies, That no where in Scripture the Innocent are found punished for the sins of the Guilty. But this Reply is not to the purpose: For seeing we read that some were punished, not only for their own sins, (in respect whereof they were guilty) but also for other men's sins, it follows that they were also punished, as they were not guilty. But if a man may in part be punished as he is not guilty, the nature of the thing doth not hinder, but that he may be punished in the whole; for the right of the parts and the whole is the same: Add also that the Posterity of Saul were wholly innocent, as to that sin, for which they were punished. But if a man may be punished in a respect, wherein he is innocent, he may also be punished being innocent. And, if a man rihtly consider, Innocence hindereth not punishment more than Affliction; yea it hindereth not that at all, but for this. Therefore the distinction of Guilty and Innocent belongs to the Question, Whether any man may be justly Afflicted: but not to this, Whether his Affliction may have the force of Punishment? For it being granted, That Relation to a man's own Sin, is not of the Essence of Punishment, it being also granted, that the Innocent may be afflicted, (as Socinus confesseth God may do for a while) no Reason verily can be given, why by the very nature of things (for here we treat not of Positive Law) it should be unjust that an innocent Person should be punished for another man's Fault with such Affliction, especially if he hath of his own accord obliged himself to such a Punishment, and hath power in himself to undertake it: which shall be handled afterwards.  
Socinus urgeth, That at least between the Guilty, and him that is punished, there ought to be some Conjunction; which he acknowledges between Father and Son, but between Christ and us, he doth not acknowledge. It might be said here, that man is not without relation to man, that there is a Natural Kindred and Consanguinity between Men, because Christ took upon him our Flesh. But another much greater Conjunction between Christ and us was decreed by God; for he was appointed of God, that he should be the Head of the Body of which we are Members. And here it must observed, that Socinus did erroneously confine to the Flesh, that Conjunction which is sufficient for the laying Punishment upon one for the sins of another; because here the Mystical Conjunction hath no less power; which appeareth most in the Example of a King and People.  
There was cited above the History of the People of Israel punished for the sin of David: Concerning which thing the Ancient Author of Questions and Answers to the Orthodox which are carried about with the Name of Justinus, discoursing wisely, said thus; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. As a man consists of a Soul and Body, so a Kingdom consists of the King and People; and as a man, having sinned a sin with his hand, if he be struck upon the back, he that struck him doth no injustice; so God doth no injustice in punishing the People for the Faults of their Kings.  
At length Socinus comes to this, that he saith, That at least this is not found in the Scripture, that an Innocent Person was punished for those Faults, for which the Guilty Person himself was not punished But this also is not to the purpose: For because it is not of itself and universally unjust to grant Impunity to a guilty Person, (which Socinus confesseth) neither is it unjust to punish a man for another man's sins; there cannot be injustice in these, no not when they are joined together. Yea, the Scripture makes manifest that that very thing is not unjust, by the Example of Achab, who received the impunity of his sins, the punishment whereof was required of his Son and Posterity, 1 Kings 21.29. 2 Kings 8, 9, and 10. But this shall be more accurately examined when we shall come to this Question, What Cause moved God that he punished Christ for our sins.  
Therefore the Sacred Writings do not at all stand on Socinus his side, which declare that God did that, which Socinus unjustly accuseth of unjustice. But neither hath he any great Defence from right Reason, which it is wonderful that he so often doth boast of, but shows it not where. But that all this Error may be taken away, it must be observed, that it is essential to punishment that it should be inflicted for sin; but it is not essential to it, that it should be inflicted upon him, who sinned: and that is manifest by the similitude of Reward, Favour, and Revenge. For often Reward useth to be conferred upon the Children or Kindred of a well-deserving Person, and Favour on them that are near akin to him that bestowed the benefit, and revenge on the Friends of him that offended: neither do they upon that account cease to be what they are, Reward, Favour, and Revenge. To the confirmation hereof this all conduceth, That if it were against the nature of punishment, than this very thing should not be called unjust, but impossible. But God forbidden the Son to be punished by men for the Father's sin, but they are not forbidden things impossible. Moreover Unjustice properly happeneth not to a Relation (such as Punishment is) but to the Action itself, such as is the matter of Punishment. And here it is necessary that the true difference should be sought, Why it should not be equally free to all men to punish a man for another man's sins, as to bestow a Reward or Favour for another man's Merit or Benefit: For an act in which is Reward or Favour is a benevolent act, which in its own nature is free to all; but the act in which Punishment is, is a hurtful act, which is neither granted to all, nor upon all. Wherefore, that a Punishment may be just, it is required, that the Penal act itself should be in the power of the Punisher: which happeneth three ways; either by the antecedent right of the Punisher, or by a just and valid consent of him whose Punishment is the Concernment, or by the Crime of the same Person. When by these ways the act is made lawful, nothing interposeth, but that it may be ordained for the punishment of another man's sin, provided there be some Conjunction between him that sinned, and the Party to be punished. And this Conjunction is either Natural, as between a Father and a Son; or Mystical, as between King and People; or Voluntary, as between the Guilty Person and the Surety. Socinus appeals to the Judgement of all Nations. But as to God, the Philosophers doubted not that the sins of the Parents were punished by him in the Children. Which Plutarch eloquently explaining in his Book, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith thus; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And presently, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. There is verily a Generation depending upon one Beginning, which sustains a certain Power and Natural Communion; and that which is begotten is not free from a Relation to that which begetteth, as a Building that is made; for it came out of it, but not from it; so that it hath, and carries in itself, some part of the things pertaining thereunto, being both reasonably chastised and punished. There is no Cruelty nor unreasonableness, that those that pertain unto them should partake of their things. He adds thereafter something not unlike that which we just now cited out of a Christian Writer; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He is ridiculous that says it is an unjust thing to burn the Thumb, when the Joints are in danger.  
And Valerius Maximus treating of Dionysius the Sicilian; Though he did not suffer the Punishments due to so many Sacrileges, yet by the Disgrace of his Son, he suffered the Punishment, which being alive he escaped. There are six hundred like places in Historians and Poets. So also it was a no less received Sentence from the time of Hesiod, who said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Justice was Jupiter's Daughter, who requested Jupiter, that the People might be punished for the sins of the Kings. 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Socinus dares not deny that other men are punished for other men's sins; for the thing is manifest in Pecuniary Punishments. Vlpianus l. si quis reum d. de cust. & exhib. reorum, says, Is punished with a Pecuniary Punishment instead of the Guilty Person. Caius saith, The Surety is rightly taken into the punishment of Theft, because great reason adviseth that punishment should be suffered, for evil Deeds. L. si à reo d. de fidejuss. And this very thing is sufficient, that it may appear that it is not of the Nature of Punishment, that he who sinned should both pay, and necessarily suffer. But Socinus brings this reason, why the same power is not in Corporal Punishments, because Money may be made another man's, and therefore being paid for another by a short fiction of the hand, it may seem given to the Delinquent, and afterwards paid by him; but Corporal Vexation cannot be made another man's; but this is said more subtilely than truly: For that Reason makes something for the procuring Deliverance to the Guilty Person. But that reason doth not make that the Punishment which another hath deserved, should be inflicted on another: for if that were of force, often the Reward of a well-deserving Person could not be paid to a Person joined with him; to wit, because the thing in which the Reward should consist, could not be made his that deserved it, either because he was dead, or because the thing was Incorporeal. The Athenians educated the Sons of well-deserving Persons upon the Public Charge. The Romans granted unto the Sons of the ancient Soldiers the privileges of Corporals: They suffered neither the Nephews, nor the Sons of the Nephews of the most Perfect (as they called them) to be subject to Examinations. We read in Greek and Roman Histories, that the Memory of Parents hath been of advantage to Children to save them from Punishment: but the Education, Privilege, or Impunity of Children cannot be made the Education, Privilege or Impunity of the dead Parents. Yea, if it were true that Socinus says, than the Punishment could not be exacted of the Surety, not being willing that the Guilty Person, being absent by chance, should be freed from the Obligation of a Pecuniary punishment. Therefore as touching this Question, this is not the true difference between Pecuniary and Corporal Punishment. We shall mention the truer presently. But this I most wonder at, that Socinus says; That it's proved by the Laws and Customs of all Nations and Ages, that a Corporal Punishment, that one oweth, cannot be paid by another. For verily, amongst the Persians of old, for the Fault of one man his Kindred perished, as witnesses Marcellinus. Amongst the Macedonians, the Heads of those were Condemned that were of the same Blood with the Traitors, as Curtius tells. In the Cities of Grecia it was a Custom, that, together with the Tyrants, the Children of the Tyrants were slain, as Halicarnassoeus and Cicero observes. Indeed, these things are not commendable, but yet they prove that that Assertion, concerning the Consent of all Nations, is not in all respects true. And in these Examples the Conjunction of Persons only, seemed to suffice for Punishment without any Consent: which Halicarnassoeus observes to have been rejected by the Romans. But where any Consent went before, I dare almost be bold to say, that there was none of all those, whom we call Pagans, that judged it an unjust thing for one man to be punished for another man's Fault. The power of kill Sureties shows this, which was usual to the most courteous People. The Thessalians of old killed Two hundred and fifty Hostages, as Plutarch tells. The Romans beheaded three hundred Volscians. They threw down the Tarentines from the Tarpeian Rock, as is mentioned in Livius. There are extant the like Examples of Goths, Danes and Englishmen: And as very Learned men have rightly observed, it was judged righteous so to do. So also in Capital Judgements the Pledges were usually slain, if the Guilty Persons did not present themselves, whence by the Grecians they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Souls put in stead, it appears sufficiently both from other places, and also from the noble History of Damon and Pythias. Neither is it any wonder that they so judged; for, because they believed that every man had no less power of his own life, than over other things, as appears by the frequent and somuch noised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Self-murder among the Grecians, Romans, and other Nations; it was clearly the Consequence that they believed Life could be strongly obliged no less than other things; for the former being presupposed, it was necessary the latter also should be granted. And verily, if any man examine this Business with requisite diligence, he will find a true difference why a man is less obliged by consent to Corporal, than Pecuniary Punishment; that is, that he that consents hath not equal power over Body and Money. Neither yet do I assent unto the Modern Lawyers approving this by a certain Answer of Vlpianus, who said, That no man seems Lord of his own Members. L. liber homo d. ad Legem Aquil. For he takes the word Lord strictly, according to the use of Civil Law, as it is opposed to a Servant, because the Aquilian Law speaks strictly of a Servant, he denies that the direct Action that is answerable to the words of the Law, can be accommodated to a Freeman wounded: yet so that by the likeness of Respects he thinks an useful Action should be given. And that I may truly say what I think, though I very much admire the Equity of the Romans in moderating this Extension of Punishment, yet I cannot be persuaded to believe that it was a thing by them supposed wholly, and of itself unjust, that one man should be corporally punished for the Fault of another. Neither am I therefore moved, because Suretiships were by them forbidden under capital punishment: for many things use to be forbidden, not because they are judged altogether unjust, but because they are dangerous, as all Suretiships of Women, and of others also for a Dowry; this therefore belonged to Civil Law, which because it failed in Foreign People, therefore it was otherways observed in Hostages by the Romans themselves. Yea, so long a time afterwards Christian Emperors appointed that the Jailor, when the guilty Person escaped through the default of his Family, should bear his Punishment, L. ad Commentariensem C. de custod. reor. And now also, or not long since, noble Masters of Law have taught that this Rule, That no man should oblige himself to Capital Punishment, ceaseth, if Law or Custom confirmed that manner.  
But as touching those Punishments which respect not any Consent, but only the Conjunction of Persons, though the Roman Laws forbidden a Son to be the Successor of his Father's Punishment, or to be marked with any Blot for his Father's Crime, yet Halicurnassaeus observes, that this very thing obtained not from the beginning, but from that time, in which Sp. Cassius was condemned of Tyranny. Wherefore neither the Romans themselves thought that this Power descended from a certain perpetual and immutable Rule of Justice. Whereas the Emperor's Arcadius and Honorius would seem to grant Life to the Sons of them that had committed Treason, not of the Necessity of the Law, but of their Imperial Lenity, when otherways, as they themselves speak, they ought to have perished by their Father's Punishment, L. quisquis C. ad l. Jul. Majest. This also may be added, That it can be proved by Histories, that the Death of Rebels was inflicted on their Children, not only by Tiberius and Severus, but also by Theodosius. It must also be observed, that in the same Law of Arcadius and Honorius, Jus omne ab intestato, aut ex Testamento cuiquam succedendi●, all right of succeeding to any man by Testament, or otherways, is taken away from the Sons of Rebels, that Infamy is branded upon them, that they are not suffered to attain to Preferments or Corporations. Afterwards it is added; May they be such, that unto them, being oppressed with perpetual want, Death may be a Comfort, and Life a Punishment. Exclusion from Preferments about the Children of them that had offended against the Commonwealth, was a long time used by the Romans from the times of Sylla. But that Sons should suffer want for the Crimes of their Parents, Cicero says it is an ancient thing, and of all Cities; and namely he adds, that the Children of Themistocles suffered want: which are only therefore brought, that it may appear that there was not that Consent of Nations, which Socinus brings in himself: and that, the Romans themselves, whose Equity was most conspicuous amongst all People, did not regard that difference in punishment, that Money may be made another man's, but Corporal Punishment may not: For neither the Poverty of Children, or Infamy, or their Exclusion from Preferment, could be made the Poverty of Parents, their Infamy, or their Exclusion from Preferments, except perchance by a certain Fiction, which esteems the Father and Children as if they were one and the same man. Also I wonder at that which Socinus pronounceth of the Fact of Zaleucus, whose History is in Diodorus Siculus and Aelianus, that he saith ●e hath a very ill report, and his name is reckoned amongst headstrong and rash Princes and Judges of People; verily all Antiquity, both for wise Laws, and also chief upon the account of that Fact, commended Zaleucus; as also it appears by these Writers, that I mentioned, and Plutarch and others; and I think that no other ancient Writer judgeth otherways of that Fact. The Sentence of Valerius Maximus is in the eyes of all men. Also there is nothing stronger than those Examples of Justice, Zaleucus, when he had guarded the City of the Locrenses with very wholesome and profitable Laws, when his Son being Condemned for the Crime of Adultery, according to the Law appointed by him, should have wanted both his Eyes, and the whole City, in respect to the Father, forgave the young man the necessity of the Punishment, for sometime he consented not. At length, being overcome by the Prayers of the People, first having plucked out his own Eye, and then his Sons, he reserved the use of seeing to both. So he rendered unto the Law, the due measure of Punishment, by a wonderful moderation of Justice, having divided himself between a merciful Father, and a just Lawgiver. And verily, if a man had a free power, as of Living in Banishment, so in plucking out his own Eye, nothing could be found more praiseworthy than that Fact of Zaleucus, especially when the precise Obligation of the Law ceased, either for his Principality, or for the People's Consent. Therefore Zaleucus erred, as almost all Pagans, that he claimed a greater power over his own Body than was due. But that Fact so much celebrated, gives Testimony against that Knowledge that Socinus thinks is imprinted in the minds of men, that no man can take upon himself the punishment of another man's Fault.  
That we may conclude this Question, this is not enquired, Whether it is lawful for any Judge to inflict upon any man any punishment of another man's Crime? For the Law of Superior Judges takes away this power from the Inferior. Neither is this enquired, Whether this be lawful to the highest Power among men, in any punishment, and over any man? for sometimes either the Law of God, or natural Reason hindereth. But this properly is enquired into, Whether the Act, that is in the power of the Superior, may without consideration of another man's Crime, be ordained by that Superior for the punishment of another man's Crime. The Scripture denies this to be unjust, which shows that God did this. Nature denies, because it is not proved to forbid; the Consent of Nations openly denies. And that the thing may be presented more naked before the Eyes, who judges Decimation that was usual in the Roman Legions to be unjust, when he that offended, and could have been pardoned no less than another, is punished not for his own Fault only, but for the Fault of all the other? Who judgeth it unjust, if, the highest Power relaxing the Law, some man useful to the Commonwealth, but deserving Banishment for a Fault, is retained in the Common wealth, yet another of his own accord obliging himself to Banishment to satisfy the Example? Who would judge it unjust, if a chief Governor of a Commonwealth denies Preferments to Children of Rebels, otherways not unworthy, if there are others found as fit for them? Verily there is no injustice here; for in the first kind of Fact, the proper fault of the Person punished; in the second, the valid Consent of the Party concerned; in the third, the Liberty of the Governor permitted that to be performed, which the Governor useth for punishment. In our Fact God hath power to punish Christ, being Innocent, unto a Temporal Death, as Socinus confesseth, to wit, a Lordly Power: Christ also had by Divine Concession, yea, as being God himself, a Power which we have not, over his own Life and Body. I, saith Christ, have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Power and Authority to lay down my Life, John 10.18. Therefore there is no Injustice in this, That God who hath the highest Power for all things that are not of themselves unjust, he himself being subject to no Law, would use the Torments and Death of Christ, to show a weighty Example against the great Crimes of us all, to whom Christ was very nearly joined by Nature, Kingdom, Suretyship: which, how not only justly but also wisely, was appointed by the most Wise and most Just God, it will appear more in the following Chapter, where we shall search into the Cause of this Divine Counsel.   

CHAP. V Whether there was sufficient Cause, that moved God to punish Christ for us? and it is showed that there was.  
Socinus often endeavours to prove that God was not willing that Christ should suffer punishment for us by this Argument, because there appears no Cause that God would do so. We need not here use the Lawyer's Defence, who deny that account can be given of all things that were appointed by Ancestors, though this Refuge may much more justly be laid open to us than to them, because it is not so difficult to men to search into the Causes of Human Will, because of the Community of Nature: but the Causes of the Divine Will, many times, through their very sublimeness, are hid from us. Who knoweth the mind of the Lord, who hath been his Counsellor? Rom. 11.32. Therefore often 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rom. 11.33. his ways are unsearchable. It could be added, that often the Will of God is sufficient to itself for a Cause: for these things being excepted, that contain in themselves a certain rectitude and determined to one, which God willeth because they are just, that is, because they agree to his Nature, in all other things that he willeth, he maketh them just by willing; so on whom he will, he hath mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth, Rom. 9.18. But it is not necessary that we should fly to those things, because God himself hath manifestly enough declared unto us Causes of his own Counsel. But it is convenient that we should say this only by way of Preface, that Socinus doth not rightly require that such a Cause should be rendered, which may prove that God could not do otherways; for such a Cause in these things that God doth freely, is not requisite. But he that will say, this Action is free, will have Augustine for a Consenter; that professeth, God wanted not another possible way of delivering us, but there was not another more convenient way for curing our Misery. But also before Augustine, Athanasius said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God could have said a word, and so abolished the Curse, if he had not come at all; but it behoveth to consider that which is profitable to men, and not the power of God in all things. Therefore that demand of Socinus is so much the more unjust, because he himself gives no Causes of the Torments and Death of Christ, which draw any necessity with them; for Oracles and Miracles could suffice to show us the way of Holiness; and Christ could without Death, and Death without Christ: for the Afflictions and Death of the Prophets also and Apostles, the Life also of Christ, could be abundantly sufficient unto us for this use. Christ also could, after a Life passed innocently here, as Enoch or Elias, have been translated into Heaven without Death, and thence show his Majesty to the Earth. For these are the Causes to which Socinus ascribes the Death of Christ, as appears to any man, which are not joined with that Effect by any necessity. What if it sufficeth to him to allege Causes not cogent, that I may so say, but inviting and persuading, Equity suffers not that he should give a harder Law to them that dispute with him.  
But it will not be difficult to us to give a sufficient Cause, and that very weighty, out of the Scriptures, whether we ask this, Why God would forgive Eternal Punishment to us? or, Why he was not willing otherways to forgive the same, but by punishing Christ? The former hath Cause in his Goodness, which of all the Properties of God is most proper to God: for every where God describes himself chief by this Attribute, that he is bountiful and gracious, Exod. 34.7. Josh. 4.2. 2 Chron. 30.9. Psal. 86.4. and 14. 103.8. 111.4,5. Isai. 55.7. Jer. 31.20. Joel 2.12. Luke 6.36. Rom. 2.4. Therefore God is forward to help man, and make him happy: But this he cannot do, while that horrible and eternal Punishment remains. Moreover, if Eternal Death should have been inflicted upon all men, all Religion had perished through Despair of Happiness: therefore there were great Causes of sparing. On the other side, those Testimonies of Scripture, already brought by us, which say that Christ was for our sins delivered up, suffered, died, do prove that God had cause, Why he laid punishment on Christ. For these kinds of speaking, as we there shown, signify an Impulsive Cause. But by these things that we have said of the end, it may be understood that there was not only a Cause, but also what the Cause was; to wit, that God would not pass by so many and so great sins, without a remarkable Example. But this is therefore, because every sin doth greatly displease God, and so much the more, how much greater it is: Prov. 11.20. Psal. 5.5. Isai. 66.4. Rom. 1.18. Zech. 8.17. Psal. 45.8. Hebr. 11.2. But because God is active, and created Creatures using reason for that purpose, that he should make his Properties more manifest, it is convenient for him to testify by some act how much sins displease him; but the act most agreeable to that thing is punishment. Hence is that in God, which Sacred Writings call Anger, because there is no other word more significant, Exod. 32.10,11. Numb. 11.1. 16.22. 25.3. Psal. 2.5,6. 1 John 3.36. Rom. 1.18. 2.8. Eph. 5.6. Coloss. 3.6. Apoc. 5.16. By this Anger God testifies that he is hindered from doing Good to men, Gen. 6.7. Jer. 5.25. Isai. 59.2. Deut. 32.29,30. Moreover, all impunity of sin of itself hath this, that sins are thereby esteemed to be of less value; as on the contrary, the most expeditious way of driving from sin, is fear of punishment. Hence that, by bearing a former Injury, thou invitest a new one, therefore Prudence upon this account stirs up a Governor to punishment. Moreover, the Cause of punishment is augmented, when any Law is published, which threatneth punishment: for then the omission of punishment, for the most, detracts from the Authority of the Law amongst Subjects. Hence that Precept of the Politicians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to keep strongly the appointed Laws. Therefore God hath very weighty Causes of punishing, especially if you please to consider, both the magnitude and multitude of sins. But, because amongst all God's Properties, the love of Mankind hath the pre-eminence, therefore God, when he could justly, and was moved to punish the sins of all men with a deserved and legal punishment, that is, with Eternal Death, he would spare them that believe in Christ; But when he was to spare, by making some or no Example against so many and so great sins, most wisely he chose that way, by which many of his Properties should be manifested, to wit, both Clemency and Severity, or the hatred of Sin, and care of keeping the Law. So Aelianus praising the Fact of Zaleucus, mentions two Causes thereof, that the young man may not be wholly blinded, and that that which once was authorized, might not be destroyed; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: of which Causes the one looks thitherward, that something of the Law may be changed through Clemency, and the other, that it should not be changed too much. They that have written concerning the Relaxation of Laws, observe that those are the best Relaxations, unto which Commutation or Compensation is annexed, to wit, because that way very little of the Authority of the Law is destroyed, and in some respect, that Reason which is the Cause of the Law, is obeyed; as if he, that is obliged to restore a thing, be freed by paying the price; for the same, and so much, are very near akin. Such Commutation is sometimes admitted, not only among things, but also sometimes among Persons, providing that may be without hurt to the other party. So Fathers are permitted to succeed into the Prison of the Son, as Cimon succeeded Miltiades, and that we may not go out of Penal Judgements, and those Divine, there are extant express Footsteps of the like Fact in Sacred Scriptures. Nathan, at the command of God, pronounced to David, being a Murderer and Adulterer, Thy sin (that is, the punishment of sin) is translated from thee, for thou shalt not die; (which otherways the Law required) but because thou hast given the Enemies of God occasion to blaspheme God, that Son, which is born to thee, to wit, very near unto thee, and Vicar of thy punishment, shall surely die 2 Sam. 12.13,14. Achab defileth himself, both with Murder and Robbery; God denounceth to him by Elias, That it should come to pass, that the Dogs should lick his Blood. Nevertheless, the same God seeing his Fear, and a certain Reverence to the Deity, said, I will not bring the Evil (to wit, which himself had deserved, and I had threatened) in his days: In the days of his Son (who, besides his own, shall also bear his Father's punishment) I will bring the Evil upon his House. In both, God relaxeth the Law or Threatening of Punishment, but not without some Compensation, by translating the Punishment upon another. And so he evidenceth both his Clemency and Severity or Hatred of Sin. So then God, willing to spare those that were to believe in Christ, had sufficient, just and great Causes, why he exacted the punishment of our sins of Christ being willing; to wit, that I may use the words of Aelianus, That that which was once ratified may not be disannulled, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and least sins should be less regarded, if so many, and so great, should be passed over without an Example. Moreover, by this very thing God did not only testify his hatred against sins,. and so by this Fact terrified us from sins; (for it is easily gathered, if God would not forgive sins, no not to them that repent, unless Christ succeeded into the p●…shment, (much less will he suffer the Impenitent to be unpunished) but also in a signal manner declared his great Love and  towards us; to wit, that he spared us, to whom it was not a thing indifferent to punish sins, but who thought it a thing of so great Concernment, that rather than he would suffer them to be wholly unpunished, he delivered up his only begotten Son to punishment for those sins. So that, as it was said by the Ancients, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, neither according to the Law, nor against the Law, but above the Law, and instead of the Law. That is very true of Divine Grace: It is above the Law, because we are not punished; for the Law, because Punishment is not omitted: And therefore is Remission given, that we may in time to come, live to the Divine Law.  
These things being rightly understood, all those things fall which Socinus objects concerning the Defect of a Cause. So that it is not necessary to go through all particulars, in which nevertheless not a few Errors may be observed. As, when in the first Chapter of the first Book, also in the first Chapter of the third Book, ●…e says, That punishing Justice doth not reside in God, but is an Effect of his Will. Verily to punish is an Effect of the Will; but that Justice or Rectitude, out of which proceeds both other things, and also Retribution of Punishment is a Property residing in God; for the Scripture concludes God to be just, because he renders Punishment to Faults, gathering the Cause from the Effect. But Socinus seems to have been led into this Error, because he believed that any Effects of the Properties of God are altogether necessary, whereas many of them are free, to wit, a free Act of the Will interveening between the Property and the Effect: So it is an Effect of the Goodness of God to communicate his own Goodness; but this he did not before the Creation. It belongs to the same Goodness to spare the Guilty: but scarcely will any man say, that God spares those, whom he punisheth with Eternal Punishment. Therefore there are some Properties of God, the Exercise whereof, both as to the Act, and also as to the Time and Manner of the Act, yea, also as to the Determination of the Object, depends upon his free Will, over which nevertheless Wisdom presides. Neither can God therefore be said, because he hath the free use of these Properties, to do what he doth without a Cause, when he useth them. For God did not therefore make the World in vain, because he had liberty not to make it; neither because it pleased God to punish some (which Socinus confesseth to be true chief in those, whose Repentance God waits for) doth he therefore punish without cause, where he punisheth: for many things are performed freely, and yet for a weighty cause.  
The other Error is also above mentioned, that he would make God forgiving sins, to do just the same thing that men do, who give up their own right. It hath been showed that punishment is not in Property or Debt, or that it can be equallized to them in all things. To give a man's own, to forgive Debt is always honourable of itself. When we say of itself, we exclude those things which are present, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by accident, such as is the Poverty of the Giver himself; which also cannot have place in God. But to forgive Punishment sometimes, would not be honourable, no not to God himself, as Socinus acknowledgeth: Therefore there is a wide difference here; but the rise of the difference is thence, that the next Foundation of Lordly Power and Debt is a certain Relation of a thing to a Person: but the next foundation of Punishment is the Relation of a thing to a thing, to wit, the Equality of a Fault with some Hurt agreeing to Order and common Good: wherefore that is not true, which Socinus asserted as most certain, That the Commonwealth will commit no unjustice, if it absolve a Guilty Person, except it also be injurious to the proper right of some private Person, or break God's Law. For by the name of Commonwealth, he either understands the Multitude that governs, or is governed. The Multitude that is governed, as it hath not the power of making Laws, so neither hath it the power of moderating them. But a Multitude that Governs, as a Senate in the State of Peers, or the greater part of a Parliament in a Popular State, cannot do more than other chiefest, Governors; as for example, free Kings in a Kingdom, and Fathers in respect of a Family. But it is part of the Justice of a Governor to keep Laws, yea, those also that are positive and given by himself, which Lawyers prove to be true, as well in a free University, as in the highest King. The Reason of both is, because the Act of Making or Relaxing a Law, is not an Act of Absolute Lordship, but an Act of Empire, which ought to tend to the Preservation of Good Order.  
That also, which Socinus says, deserves Reprehension, That besides the Will of God and Christ himself, there can be no lawful Cause given of the Death of Christ, unless we say, Christ deserved that he should die. For Merit is in the Antecedent Cause, as we said above, but Impersonally; for our sins deserved that Punishment should be required: But that Punishment was conferred upon Christ, this we so refer to the Will of God and Christ, that that Will hath also its own Causes, not in the Merit of Christ (who when he knew no sin, was made sin by God) but in the great fitness of Christ to show a signal Example; which consists both in his great Conjunction with us, and in the unmatched dignity of his Person. But that Collection of Socinus is confuted by manifest Testimonies of Scripture. The Antecedent Cause, Why the Infant of David died? is made manifest; because David by sinning heinously, gave occasion to the wicked to insult over the Name of God blasphemously. Here there is Merit, but not in the Infant. And in punishing the Posterity of Achab beyond their own Merit, God had respect to the Merit of the sins of Achab. Whence it appears that the Antecedent Cause of Punishment is Merit, but not always the Merit of the Person that is punished.   

CHAP. VI Whether God willed that Christ should be punished? And it is showed that he willed it. And also the Nature of Satisfaction is Explained.  
THese two Questions having been handled, Whether God could justly punish Christ, being willing, for our sins? And, Whether there was some sufficient Cause why God should do it? The third remains, Whether really God did this, or, which signifies the same, willed to do it? For Socinus denies it both in many places elsewhere, and also in a set Discourse upon it, Lib. 3. cap. 2. We, together with Scripture, maintain that God willed this, and did it. For Christ is said to have been delivered up, to have suffered and died for our sins, Rom. 4.25. 1 Pet. 3.18. Isai. 53.5. The Chastisement of our Peace was laid upon Christ. God laid upon Christ our sins, that is, the punishment of sins, which were so required, that he, upon that account was afflicted; Christ did bear our sins, that is again, the punishment of sins, Isai. 53.5,6,7. 1 Pet. 2.24. Christ made himself Sin and a Curse, that is, liable to the punishment of sins, Isai. 53.10. 2 Cor. 5.21. Gal. 3.13. The Blood of Christ was shed for the Remission of sins; so that that Remission did not come to pass without the shedding of Blood, but by it. Matth. 26.28. Hebr. 9.22. and elsewhere in many places.  
Here Socinus opposeth many things: Some Examples and Promises before Christ; some sayings concerning those things, that God said he gave by Christ. The word remittere and cordonare, to forgive and pardon, and the very nature of Liberality, from which he thinks it follows, that God willeth to grant Impunity to us repenting, requiring no punishment of any man upon that account. As touching the Examples of Indulgence (besides that no universal thing is rightly concluded from them) it must be observed, that these belong either to Temporal Punishment or Eternal. If they belong to Temporal Punishment only, the difference is manifest: for as it is proverbially said, That which is deferred is not taken away. Now add this, that in the very Fact of Achab, as also in the Fact of David, the contrary appears of that which Socinus would infer, alleging them for himself: for the Temporal Punishment was so taken away from David and Achab, that it was translated unto others. And in the Law itself, sins are not forgiven, except the Blood of the Sacrifices be poured out, as shall be explained afterwards. But if the remission of Eternal Punishment be the matter of Discourse, Socinus proves by no Argument, that it was made to any man without a respect of God to Christ. The same must be said of Promises, that hath been said of Examples: and by the way it must be observed. That when God promiseth to them that repent, that he will forgive Temporal Punishments, that should not be understood always of the whole punishment, but of so much: for God often useth to punish them also that repent, but fatherly and gently. So God restored his people, when they repent; from the Babylonish Captivity unto their Country, but restored not the former Liberty and Glory of the Kingdom. But as touching Eternal Punishment, there is no Promise of Remission, which excludes a respect to Christ. Hitherto belong those say of Sacred Scripture, which show that Christ tasted death for all men, without any difference of time; that he gave himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Ransom for all, Heb. 2.9. 1 Tim. 2.6. and much more those that by a Comparison being added, admit no restriction of time; as when all are said to have sinned, and to be justified by Redemption in Christ, Rom. 3.23. and when Righteousness is said to have come by one Christ upon all (to wit, as many as are justified) as by one Adam Condemnation came upon all men, Rom. 3.12. 5.17,18. 1 Cor. 15.22. Hence it is that Christ is called the Lamb slain from the foundation of the World, Apoc. 13.8. which place is sufficiently vindicated from the Interpretation of Socinus, both by the very coherence of the words, and also by a like place of Peter, where Redemption is said to be made by the Blood of Christ, the unblameable and unspotted Lamb, that was foreknown before the foundation of the World, but made manifest in the last times, 1 Pet. 1.19,20. Wherefore elsewhere the Death of Christ is said to have interposed for the Redemption of those Transgressions that had been under the former Covenant, Hebr. 9.15. and the Righteousness of God is said to be declared by his Blood, for the pardoning of sins that went before, which God is showed to have tolerated and suffered at that time, the declaring of Righteousness being deferred to the time of Christ, Rom. 3.25. Hereunto belongs that famous place to the Hebrews 3.25. not that he should often offer up himself, as the Chief Priest entered once a year into the Sancturry with the Blood of another, or else he should have suffered often from the Foundation of the World: but now he hath been made manifest once in the end of the World, to take away sin by the offering up of himself; and as it is appointed for all men once to die, and after this the Judgement; so Christ was once offered, that he might carry up the sins of many, etc. The whole coherence of which place, if it be rightly considered, and especially if that place of Peter be compared, 1 Pet. 1.19. where the same thing is discoursed of almost in the same words, it will appear that in this the Sacrifice of Christ differs from the Levitical, because the Efficacy was limited within the time of a year, but the Efficacy of that extends itself through all Ages: for his Passion was esteemed with God as performed before all Ages, though really it was performed in a certain time, and so the decree of God, was very manifestly revealed unto us. And unless it had been so, Christ must often have underwent Sufferings, not after he began to preach, but from the beginning of the World. Which words have no signification at all, unless the Efficacy of the Death of Christ extend itself to all sins, which have any time been forgiven to men, from the very beginning of the World: Just as the Judgement after Death extends itself to all sins that a man committed, during life. But the contrary Interpretation of Socinus, doth not only render the words vain, but weakens the Argument of the Writer: for it doth not follow, if it were granted that Christ should have often been offered, that he ought to have suffered, not only often, but often from the Foundation of the World; unless you put together, that Christ should have been often offered from the Foundation of the World; for these have a coherence with one another: for the Effect of the Oblation is not stretched farther than the Dignity of the Sacrifice. But that Christ should have been offered ofttimes from the Foundation of the World, if the parity of the Sacrifice of Christ and the Levitical were granted, which the Writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews opposeth, it would not follow from any other thing, but because the Effect of the Oblation of Christ is extended unto those sins that were at any time committed, and forgiven from the Foundation of the World: For if it were equal to the Levitical, (that is, of a virtue limited within a certain time) verily its Efficacy could not reach from the time that Christ died, unto the most ancient sins. But it would have been altogether necessary, that many Acts of that kind should have been interposed between both times.  
Now let us come to those Testimonies, that seem to Socinus properly to belong to the time of Christ, and the New Covenant. Jeremiah indeed says, God will be propitious to sins: but denies not that which Paul says, That this Propitiation is made in the Blood of Christ, or, that God hath respect unto Christ; yea, all the Prophets (among whom also Jeremiah) bear witness that remission of sins is received by the Name, that is, the Efficacy and Virtue of Christ, Acts 10.43. And Deliverance by Christ is said to have come to us according to that Covenant which God made with the Fathers; and according to those things that he foretold by the Prophets, Luke 1.68,70,71,72,73,74. The Baptist also at the Command of God, promiseth remission to the Penitent, and that for the Bowels of Mercy of our God; but the same said, That Christ is the Lamb that taketh away the sins of the World, to wit, by Sacrificing, which the Revelation expresseth, or by Blood, as Peter speaketh; in which places likewise the mention of a Lamb having been made, shows unto what the Baptist had respect.  
The name remittendi, of forgiving, which Socinus urgeth, in the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Ancient Interpreter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated to put away. We shown above, that that was not the force either of the Greek or Latin word, that it should necessarily include all kinds of giving up a man's right, because the original and primitive signification of the word is opposite to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is to retain, or bring unto: whence, by a certain resemblance, it began to be translated both to Punishment and to Debt. Nor to those only, but also to other things: for the Grecians call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, forgiving, the absolving of an accused Person, being Innocent, in Judgement. We also shown above, how much difference there is between the remission of Debt and the remission of Punishment: and that in the remission of sin, which is made by a Governor, there is no abdication of such a proper and private right as Socinus mentioneth, to wit, absolute Lordship, or Debt: therefore these things may be fetched thence. Now that only must be added, That it is not true, which Socinus would have, that remission is contrary to any payment going before. Which that it may be understood, we shall represent a certain Description of Remission of Debt, which contains under it both those kinds, to wit, of Debt and Punishment; and that according to the use of that word, both in Civil Law, and in common Speech: Therefore to forgive a Debt is an Act, either of a Creditor or Governor, freeing the guilty Person from the Obligation of Punishment or Debt. We shall give a larger Explication for the sake of those, who are not well acquainted with Terms of Law; the destruction of Obligation in Law is called liberatio, freeing. Payment may go before this, it cannot follow it; because no Act can be exercised about that which is no more. Therefore liberatio, freeing, comes sometimes when some Payment goes before, sometimes without any Payment: But one Payment frees ipso facto, and another not ipso facto, at the very time of Payment. The Payment of a thing that is wholly the same with what was in the Obligation, frees ipso facto: and it is the same sense, whether a guilty Person himself pay, or another for him, to this intent that he may be freed. Which should therefore be observed, because if another man pay the same for another intent, liberatio, freedom, is not thereby procured. L. si poena l. in summa D. de cond. indeb. l. Cassius D. de solut. Therefore where the same is paid by a Debtor, or by another in the name of a Debtor, there is no remission; for the Creditor or Governor doth nothing about the Debt. Wherefore if any man suffer the punishment that he ought, hence will be deliverance, but not remission. And Lawyers call the profession of such a Deliverance in the right of the Debt, properly and strictly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, L. si accepto parag. 1. D. de acceptil. but no other payment delivers ipso facto; to wit, if another thing is paid than what was in the Obligation, L. 1. parag. 2. d. de reb. cred. but it is necessary that some Act of the Creditor or Governor should be added thereto, which Act rightly and usually is called remission. And such a payment, that may either be admitted or refused, being admitted in Law, it hath the special name of Satisfaction, which is sometimes opposed unto Payment more strictly taken, L. Satisfactio D. de solut. And hence the true Cause is to be brought, why a Vicar of Corporal Punishment cannot ipso facto deliver a guilty Person by paying the punishment. For this happeneth first and of itself, not because another paid, (for that hindereth not the liberation, if so be it is the will of the payer) but because he paid another thing than what is in the Obligation; for there is in the Obligation the punishing of him who sinned: whence it useth to be said, That the Head follows a Crime: which may also be seen in other Obligations to a Fact that are merely personal, as in a Contract of Marriage, and in the Obligation of Workmen in Office. L. Operae de operis libert. For in all these, if another pay, deliverance will not follow ipso facto, because together with that another thing is paid; therefore that by the punishment of one man, Deliverance may come to another, some Act of the Governor should interpose: for the Law commands him that sinned to be punished. This Act, in respect of the Law, is Relaxation or Dispensation, in respect of the Debtor, Remission. But deliverance without payment comes to pass, either by the substituting of a new Obligation, or by a total rescinding thereof. The substitution of a new Obligation, whereby deliverance is made, is called novatio, novation; and if the Person of the Debtor is changed, delegation. But the liberatio, deliverance, which wholly destroys the Debt without any payment, it is performed with solemn words about the Debt; in Civil Law it is called acceptilation, a verbal discharge of Debt. But about Punishment, it hath not a proper name, that excludes necessarily payment of what manner soever, or how great soever; but it is called by a common name, gratia, venia, indulgentia, abolitio, grace, pardon, indulgence, abolition. Therefore Socinus is twice deceived, when he applies the word acceptilatio, verbal discharge, taken out of the Law, to that Remission which God grants to us. For first, that word, at the very time when no payment went before, may be applied to the right of Debt, but cannot, neither useth to be applied to punishment: for no man hath read that indulgence of Crimes hath been called acceptilatio by any ancient Writer; for that thing accepta fertur, is said to be received, that can be received. But a Governor really requires Corporal Punishment, but receives it not, because nothing of the punishment comes properly to him. Moreover, acceptilatio is opposed to any manner of payment: whence it is figuratively defined an imaginary payment. But Christ gave his life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a ransom for us, Matth. 20.28. and we are bought with a price; that is, we are delivered by some payment, 1 Cor. 6.20. and 7.23. concerning which more largely afterwards. Therefore there is not acceptilation here. Also it is not the payment of the very thing that was due, which delivers ipso facto, for our Death, and that Eternal Death was in the Obligation: neither is it novation or delegation: for after our being delivered, another like Debt, or another Debtor doth not succeed. But it is a Remission, Satisfaction going before; which things Socinus falsely judgeth to be contrary to one another; whenas on the contrary all Satisfaction (that is, refusable payment) is therefore admitted, that there may be place for Remission. But when we say, Satisfaction goes before, that must be understood either in the Act itself, as it happeneth in the sins of Christians, or in a certain and irrevocable Decree, as in the sins committed and forgiven under the Law: for what God hatch decreed to do, is esteemed as already performed; and if so be the Debt be truly paid, it is the same sense at what time it is paid, especially with him, who knoweth all things, that are certainly to come to pass; and perpetually sees and beholds them as present; which is the confession of Socinus himself. Therefore those things that Socinus brings to prove that Satisfaction cannot follow after Remission, or come to pass together, and that there is not here any novation or delagation, also that there may be some liberation, where there is no remission, are said in vain, and belong not to our question. But that which he says, That by Satisfaction the Debt is wholly and presently taken away, belongs indeed to the matter, but is not true, except Satisfaction, against the Custom of the Law, be taken for the payment of the thing that is due, made by him that oweth it; concerning which we discourse. But where another pays for a Debtor, and where another thing is paid than what is due, here a twofold Act of of the Will is required for liberation. For both he that payeth aught to will this, that the Debtor may be delivered, otherways deliverance comes not, as we shown above, and the Creditor or Governor ought to admit the payment of one thing for another. Wherefore seeing that every man may impose a Law upon an Act depending upon his own Will, as that which is purely due, may be novated (renewed) upon a Condition, L. quoties D. de Novat. So also he that pays for another, and he who admits the paying of one thing for another, may make a Covenant that Remission may presently follow, or upon a certain day, also either purely or upon condition. But this was the Mind and Will, this was the Agreement and Covenant both of Christ satisfying, and of God admitting Satisfaction; not that God should presently forgive sins in the very time of the Suffering of Christ, but that it should be at length, when Man being converted to God by true Faith in Christ, begs pardon humbly, to which also is joined Christ's Advocateship or Intercession with the Father. Therefore here Satisfaction doth not hinder Remission to follow: for Satisfaction had not by this time taken away the Debt, but performed this, that for the sake thereof the Debt should at some time be taken away.  
Socinus adds a prop to the word Remission, that was itself without Efficacy, out of a Parable, Matth. 18. and that with a twofold Argument: First, That God is compared to a King forgiving a Servant the money that he owed him; adding no mention of any Satisfaction: and then, That we are implicitly commanded to do the same thing that God doth: and that we ought not so to forgive our Offenders, as to require punishment of their Friends. But the Answer is easy, that the Comparison is stretched beyond that whereunto it hath respect: which is vicious in every Argument drawn from similitude. Christ compares himself to a Thief, and us to a Steward giving gifts of that which was another man's; not that either he himself takes away a thing that is another man's, without the will of its Possessor, or that it behoves us to do the same: but he compares himself to a Thief, because he comes at unawares; and us to a Steward, because it becomes us to do that with our own, which he did with that which was not his own. So in that Parable Matth. 18. Bounty towards our Neighbour is commended unto us, because God is bountiful towards us. In this the King and God agree in the Parable, That they are bountiful to them that are far below them. God testifies this bounty by pardoning sins; the King by pardoning money that was due. As there is another kind of owing, so there is another kind of forgiving. The King and God disagree in this, That a King forgives without Satisfaction, God not without Satisfaction. But the Comparison lies not in that. Also there is another Reason: for concerning Debt, which right is provided for the profit of the Creditor, every man hath a most free power of appointing: and how much less he requires, he is so much the more liberal: but in exacting he exerciseth no Act of Virtue. But concerning Punishment, which belongs to the common Good and Order, a Governor indeed hath power, but not such a power as goes beyond bounds: And when he requires Punishment, he useth a certain Virtue, that is called Rewarding Justice, as we showed above. As touching the other Comparison which is made between God and us in the Moral of the Parable, no other thing can be inferred from thence, but that it is not just that we should be rigider towards an Equal, than God, who is so much above us, is towards us that are miserable men. Hence it follows, that we ought not to require Revenge, more than God requires Punishment. But God delivered us from Punishment: Therefore we also ought to be without the desire of Revenge. But how God performed that Deliverance, it is not said there, neither is it to the purpose: for in that there is not a Similitude, but a Dissimilitude; for God is a Judge, we are private Persons. It is convenient for a Judge to be solicitous concerning an Example: that Care belongs not to private Persons. The power of Punishing is comprehended in the Office of a Judge: the same is taken away from private Persons. What if that Comparison be too much pressed (as it is by Socinus) it would follow, that men being Judges, ought not to require Punishment of any guilty Persons.  
Socinus, in some respect, acknowledging the name of Remission not to be forcible enough to exclude all kinds of Payment or Satisfaction, expects some more help from that other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to give freely, which Paul upon this subject useth thrice, Col. 2.13. and 3.13. and Eph. 4.31. concerning the force of which word, we have said before, that it was nothing else but to signify any benefit, especially that which was not due. But that, which Socinus puts for a thing most certain, that this also is required to the signification of that word, that a man should take something from himself, and should deprive himself of a benefit of his own, is not true. For not only all those things, that are mentioned in many places of the Scripture, concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the free Gifts of God; as amongst others, for example, when it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be given to us to believe in Christ, and to suffer for Christ. Jesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 freely gave to the blind man his sight. When did Christ deprive himself of any benefit when he did so? He, that for the sake of any man condemns an innocent person, is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, freely to give him, Acts 25.11, and 16. who yet did not belong to the Condemner. Paul exercised the severity of Apostolic Discipline towards the person guilty of Incest, not being injured himself, neither for any advantage of his own. And forgiving this, he said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he forgave, 2 Cor. 2.10. admonishing also the Corinthians to admit the same man unto the privilege of their former Friendship: this also he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, freely to give, Ib. 7.10. By these, and many other places both of the New Testament, and also of other Writers, it evidently appears, that it is sufficient to the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that something of advantage that was not due, comes to the Patient, though nothing is taken away from the Agent.  
Moreover, we shown above, that a Governor in punishment doth not abdicate any thing proper and private; and that is the more evident in this matter, because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is not only attributed to God, but also to Christ, Eph. 4.32. but the injury of sin is directed properly against God; so that if, upon that account, God forgiving sins, should be said, to take away from himself that which is his own, yet the same cannot be said of Christ, as Mediator. Neither is that more true which Socinus deduceth from that already supposed, to wit, That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is contrary to any Satisfaction. For it is not contrary to that Satisfaction, which is both freely admitted, when it could have been rejected, and unto which he that receives the benefit contributed nothing himself: We are in vain solicitous concerning that word condonare, because the Holy Spirit caused not any thing to be written in that Language. What if yet this word also should appear in Sacred Scripture? Yet, because in Punishment a Donation properly so called, hath no place, neither is the Translation of that word unusual, nothing could hence be inferred against Satisfaction, a thing may be said rightly to be forgiven, as also to be pardoned then also, when payment is made, but such a payment as hath no power to purchase Liberation without an act of the Will. For Prince's also when they give pardon unto persons guilty of Capital Crimes, they use to require of them both some Mulct, and a certain public deprecation of the Fault: neither yet are they therefore said the less to forgive Crimes. Therefore how much more justly may that word be used here, where the required satisfaction proceeds not from us, but Liberation comes altogether freely in respect of us, though not freely absolutely? which the Scripture declares, when it says, we are justified freely; and immediately adds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, Rom. 30.24. Verily, seeing the Scripture says not in one place only, that we are redeemed, and that with a price, and that Christ gave himself, or his Flesh, to deliver us, no Equity suffers to overthrow all the force of these, by urging the word condonare beyond what the use of the word requires.  
But to that other Argument of Socinus, which is drawn from the imitation of God and Christ in freely giving, which we are commanded, there is no need that any other thing should be answered, but what we have already said on the Parable, Matth. 13. that the thing is proposed to our imitation, not the manner of the thing. The thing is the Bounty itself, even after sin; and the Remission following from it, or the Forgiving (if so you are pleased to speak) the manner is different; in God Satisfaction going before; in us without it; neither is it any wonder, because God is a Judge, and we private Persons. What if a man consider the matter more nicely, he will find that all Satisfaction is not removed wholly from that Condonation that is commanded to us, but that only which in respect of the Person, to wit, an Equal, not a Superior, exceeds measure. For the very Confession of a Fault and Deprecation (which Christ forbids not to be required, Luke 17.4,5.) is so far from disagreeing with Satisfaction, that elegant Latin Authors do call it, as it were by a peculiar name, Satisfacere, to satisfy. So also Paul useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning the Corinthian, when yet the Rebuke of many had went before, 2 Cor. 2.6. And we know, that in the Ages next the Apostles, the peace of the Church, as they called it, was not given to them that fell, but after some public Acts of Submission, which they therefore called Satisfactions.  
The Reason drawn from Liberality leans upon a weak Foundation. For, as we shown before, that the Virtue, which God useth in forgiving of sins, is not Liberality, but Clemency, which Seneca rightly defineth the Meekness of a Superior towards an Inseriour in appointing punishment. Cicero putting the name of a Gender for a Species, called this same Clemency Meekness, and defined it, Justice placed in the moderation of Punishment, taking the word Justice in so large a sense, that it comprehends Piety, and Faith, and Friendship. Therefore this Clemency belongs to that Virtue which Aristotle in his Ethics calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Meekness; for Clemency is the Meekness of a Ruler. But Meekness and Liberality are very much different. The Scripture by a somewhat more general name calls this Clemency of God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Goodness, Rom. 2.4. and 11.22. Tit. 2.4. but never called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Liberality. Yea, which is more, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Liberality, is not applied to God; no not in other things that use to be given and received; but this Virtue also is rather called the Love of God; because it properly belongs to Liberality so to give a thing, that it perisheth to the giver. But that Socinus, with great intemperance of Speech, condemns the constant Opinion of the Church of Impiety and Sacrilege; because that he himself acknowledgeth a twofold Liberality of God, and we only a simple, in that thing he doth a great injury to the Truth: for our Opinion also acknowledgeth in God a twofold, not Liberality (for that word is unsuitable to this matter, and unusual to Scripture) but Bounty, and that much greater than that lately started up Opinion of Socinus. The former Bounty is, that God seeing he was stirred up with great hatred against sin, and could have as well been utterly unwilling to spare us, as he was utterly unwilling to spare the Angels that finned, yet that he might spare us, he did not only admit such a payment, as he was not obliged to admit, but he also himself of his own accord found it out. Verily this benefit is much greater and much more glorious, than if God, judging it a matter of no value, whether some Example were made, or not, had suffered our sins to go unpunished, as Socinus would have. Therefore the Glemency of God is not overthrown by the payment of punishment, because to admit such payment, and much more to invent it, proceeded from mere Clemency.  
The other Bounty is, that he delivered up to death his own Son, being most dear unto him, the Image of himself, and, if it is lawful so to speak, his other self, not only that he might give a Testimony to the Truth of the Doctrine, and so might attain unto the Resurrection (within which Socinus contained himself) but chief that he might perform that payment or satisfaction by suffering the punishment of our sins: in which part Socinus ought to confess, that he would owe much less to Christ than we own: yea, this evidenceth that a greater love of God is declared by us, because it is just, that Benefits should be esteemed not only for the Expense, but chief for the Advantage that by the Expense redounds unto the person on whom the Benefit is bestowed. But we, besides the Advantages which together with us Socinus confesseth, acknowledge a chief one, which he denies. Neither say we, That God bestowed his Son, that God himself might receive his own, and so make God sordid, with which Socinus upbraids us: but we say, God therefore did it that he might openly declare the merit of sin, and his own hatred against our sins, and also that he might consult the order of things, and his own Law, as much as be could in sparing us. Neither is that less unjust, and that I may use his own word, cruel, that he sats, we make God cruel. For that end of the Satisfaction being added, makes the Sufferings of Christ no heavier: which Socinus is compelled to confess, that they were laid upon him by God without any cruelty: yea, how many more ends there are, so much farther is the appearance of Cruelty removed: for he is a cruel person, that without cause, or for a light cause, tormenteth any one. Moreover, this end of Satisfaction, or bearing Punishment, coheres with the Death of Christ much more evidently, and with a much surer connexion, than those ends that Socinus acknowledgeth: for Miracles could give Testimony to the Doctrine enougn and abundantly: Also Celestial Glory could have been conferred upon Christ without the intervening of Death: but Death, such a Death especially is fitted properly for suffering Punishments, and punishment for procuring deliverance.  
But though we hitherto shown that satisfaction was made to God by the punishment of Christ, yet we desire not to deny that the force of satisfaction is in the very action of Christ. For oftimes an acceptable action useth to be admitted instead of a punishment. A benefit coming after, saith Seneca, suffereth not an injury to appear, Lib. 6. cap. 5. In which place he showeth, that to render is to give a thing for a thing, and that by payment the same thing is not paid, but so much. But though God, that needeth nothing, cannot receive a Benefit, yet his great Goodness taketh any Dutifulness for a Benefit. So Achab prevented a Temporal punishment by calling humbly upon God. Neither doth only a man's own action profit him for freedom from punishment, but also another man's, with whom he is joined. So punishment was forgiven to the Posterity of David, for the sake of David himself, 2. Kings 8.19. not only for the Promises made to David; but also because the actions of David pleased God judging graciously of them, 1 Kings 11.13. and 20.6. So Aelianus tells, That Aeschylus was delivered from punishment, because his Brother Amyntas had acted valiantly for bis Country. So amongst the Romans, when Titus Quintius was accused, the Memory of his Father profitted him. Livius concerning Appius; He commemorated the Merits of his Forefather towards the Commonwealth, that he might deprecate punishment. Death was forgiven to Plautius Lateranus for the eminent Merit of his Uncle. And in the general, salustius said, If they offended their ancient Nobility, the valiant Acts of their Ancestors are present for a Safeguard unto them. Cicero; It will behoove him who shall require that he may be pardoned, to produce good Deeds of his Predecessors, if any are known. Quintilian; The Merits of Progenitors plead for a person in danger. And as Works temporally good avail for a temporal impunity, so the Work of Christ, being perfectly and spiritually good, availed for deliverance from eternal punishment. Unto which that hath reference, By the obedience of one man many are made righteous, that is, they are justified, they are esteemed as innocent, Rom. 5.19. and that other for his Name, to wit, the Name of Christ, and there was no mention of God before, as Socinus confesseth. And moreover, the like Sentence proveth this same thing, Acts 10.43. Our sins are forgiven to us, 1 John 2.13. For it is certain that by this phrase, for the name of a man, the impulsive cause is signified: Neither can Socinus prove the contrary by any place of Scripture. But what we said of Satisfaction, that it is first given to the punishment, and afterward to the obedient action if self, the same should be understood concerning the appeasing God, concerning our Redemption, and concerning Expiation, for the explaining whereof we are now preparing.   

CHAP. VII. Concerning Propitiation and Reconciliation made by the Death of Christ.  
SOcinus himself took care that no man might mistake this present Disputation, as if it were concerning a word only; for he professeth in many places, That be opposeth not the naked word of Satisfaction, but the thing itself signified by the word: Therefore, Christ reconciled God unto us by his blood; Christ delivered us out of the hands of Divine Justice, by giving thereunto his own blood, the price of our Redemption; Christ made amends for our wicked works by his own obedience; Christ worthily deserved that God should bestow upon us the remission of sins; Christ pacified the Anger of God by the loss of his life; Socinus no less disallows all these, than the word Satisfaction itself, and yet if this Disputation were concerning the word, the Church cannot be justly defrauded of the liberty of interpreting Scriptures. In which this also is comprehended, to translate very aptly into other Languages those things that either the Prophets spoke in Hebrew words, or the Apostles in Greek words, which savoured many times of a Hebraism or Syrianism, or to epitomise in a perspicuous compend of words, those things which belonged to the same Matter the Scripture hath delivered in several places. So that which the Scripture said, That Christ was delivered to death for sins, and to have suffered sins, that is, the punishment of sins, and that his blood was shed for the remission of sins, is expressed in elegant Latin and significantly by the word satisfaciendi, of satisfying: for that word in Law or common use signifies the exhibition of a Fact or Thing, from which Deliverance followeth not ipso facto, but an Act of the Will being joined. And it useth to be taken in this sense, not only in pecuniary Debts, but also in Crimes, which Languages that are derived of the Roman Language with depravation, call contentare, to content. But that it may appear that Expressions of the same value, yea, those very Expressions that Socinus rejects, are found in Sacred Scripture, we shall add some other Testimon●…s unto those that were drawn out of the Sacred Book above in the first Explication of this Sentence, and we shall refer them to four Classes. The first Class shall be of those Expressions, that signify the turning away of Anger. The other of those that declare Deliverance made by Redemption or the paying of a price. The third of those that signify Subrogation. The fourth of those that ascribe unto the Death of Christ the virtue of an Expiatory Sacrifice.  
That we may enter upon the first Class, it is very well known, that to turn away the wrath of a man, is called in the Greek Language, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the Latin placare, pacare, conciliare, reconciliare, also propitiare, to appease, to pacify, to reconcile, to propitiate. Both the act itself, and also that by which the act is properly performed, is called by the Grecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and by the Latins placamen. In God, Anger, as we said above, is called by anthropopathy, as it were the affection of punishing; which the Apostle saith is revealed from heaven upon all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, that detain the Truth in unrighteousness, that is, that go against the known Commands of Christ. But no man is excepted, because we are all by nature the sons of wrath, that is, liable to the anger of God. This anger abides upon some, Joh. 3.26. and it is turned from them, upon whom it abides not. Christ by his Death attains this Aversion, and therefore it is very rightly called Propitiation. So John the Apostle calls him twice, when he says, If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous: and he is a Propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of all the world. Epist. 1. cap. 2. vers. 2. Also, in this is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his son to be a Propitiation for our sins, cap. 4. vers. 10. with which place that of Paul must be compared; God commendeth his love, that when we were yet sinners, Christ died for us, Rom. 5.8. for both Paul and John prove by the same Argument, that we did not first love, but were beloved of God: and that which Paul calls he died, John calls, he was made a Propitiation. Moreover, that place of Paul must be added, We are justified freely by the Redemption in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a Propitiation by Faith in his Blood. Therefore Christ was made a Propitiation in his own blood: which what is it else but that very thing that Socinus denies, That God was reconciled in Christ: for that he interprets in John 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Expiation, and by the word Expiation understands the destruction of sin, he doth that for no cause, and guarded by no example. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all Greek Writers, Poets, Historians, and others, is to propitiate, and useth to be construed with an Accusative, signifying the person, whose anger is turned away: neither is it otherways taken in the Septuagint, and Luke 18.13. In one place only, which is Hebr. 2.17. Christ is said to be appointed a Chief Priest to propitiate the sins of the people; where there is an Enallagy coming from the Hebraism, to propitiate the sins; when it should have been said according to custom, to propitiate God for the sins of the people. Therefore he there signifies Expiation, but that which is made by Reconciliation. Otherways this use of the word should have nothing common with the nature of the word, and the perpetual signification of the same. Wherefore that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to propitiate, and the word thence derived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, propitiation, cannot signify such an Expiation as Socinus deviseth, that is, the destruction of sin, which is performed without atonement. But Socinus interpreteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned by Paul, that in which God showeth himself appeased. We deny not that this signification may agree to the word, and for some such reason the covering of the Ark is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Writer to the Hebrews. But because words of that Termination signify properly a certain effective Virtue, and improperly a declarative, no reason suffereth us here to departed from property; for it is evident that Christ is so called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Paul, as he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by John. But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verily signifies atonement, not the testimony of atonement: wherefore Scripture interpreting Scripture, the word also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be expounded of Christ actively, not declaratively. Moreover, the word blood being joined with it shows the same, to which the virtue of reconciling is attributed; because without shedding blood there is no remission. These are well known, 
Sanguine placastis ve'ntos & virgine coesa.  
Ye pacified the Winds with blood, and a Virgin slain.  and the like in Poets, concerning which there will afterwards be place to discourse more accurately.  
The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is like the word appeasing, to procure favour, and reconcile, which Paul useth in this very Argument, Rom. 5.10. and 11.292 Cor. 5.18. and Eph. 2.16. and Col. 1.10. Socinus opposeth, That it is written, that God was not reconciled to us, but we to God, and that upon that account, because God was not angry at us, but we were turned away from God. For the word reconciling, as also the word appeasing promiscuously assigns sometimes the Dative, sometimes the Accusative to either party, both the party that is angry, and also the party that is not angry at all, or less angry. Therefore it hath the same signification, that we are reconciled to God, and God to us. Sophacles in Ajax. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  But he goes, being turned to the best Opinion, That he may be reconciled to the Gods from his anger. Where the Choir expresseth that which Ajax had said before; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  But I go to washings and the brinks of the shore, that having cleansed my faults, I may escape the heavy wrath of the Goddess. We see here manifestly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be reconciled to the Gods, is the same with escaping their anger. And verily, he that diligently hath looked into those places just now cited, cannot deny that they speak of this Reconciliation, that is, the turning away of the wrath of God, or verily of this also. For Rom. 5. Paul after his own manner expressing twice the same thing, that which he had said before, that Christ died for the wicked and sinners, vers. 6. and 8. presently he expresseth the same in these words, that when we were Enemies we were reconciled unto God by the death of his Son, vers. 10. And it appears by the opposite Member, that this benefit is before Conversion itself: If these things, saith he, are so, much more now being justified by him, we shall be saved from wrath, verse 9 also much more being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. The Apostolic Argumentation proceeds à majori. If God was so good towards us before we were converted, what will he be to us being converted? Here the word Reconciliation in the form Member cannot signify Conversion; for the Apostle observes some singular thing in Christ; but to convert sinners, is not such a thing; for they are not converted at any time, but being sinners: But it is a rare, and altogether singular thing, to die for sinners, and to reconcile sinners by death, seeing that there have been always very few who would die for their Friends, being good men, vers. 7. Then Conversion is more aptly ascribed unto the glorious Life of Christ, than his Death; but this Reconciliation is attributed to Death, distinguished and discriminated from a glorious Life, as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 opposite signification of the word shows. Moreover, by the latter benefit it is given to be understood what the former is. The latter that comes to the converted, is to have peace with God, verse 1. to be saved from wrath, vers. 9 and 10. The Apostle calls this same, to receive reconciliation, verse 11. What other thing is it here to receive reconciliation, but to receive remission of sins, as the Scripture speaks, Acts 10.43. and 26.18. but to receive Conversion is an unknown kind of speaking. If therefore in the latter Member to receive reconciliation is to receive the reconciliation of sinners, and in effect to be delivered from wrath, or from punishment, in the former Member also to be reconciled, should have an analogical signification: that the former Member may be a right to the thing, the latter an exhibition of the same thing. Add unto all these, that the love of God cannot be said, but very unsutably and unaptly, to be gathered from this, that we have departed from the hatred of God: For though Paul would have discoursed of the benefit of our Redemption, it should have been expressed with anotherguess word, that might signify not our action but Gods. But nothing is more plain than our Interpretation, nothing more agreeable to the Apostle's purpose. But that Socinus objects, that the mention of satisfaction here is not suitable, yea, that the praise of love is thereby diminished, it is a vain thing: for mention is not made of satisfaction in respect of its being a punishment, but as it is a way of delivering us. Neither, as we proved before, can the love of God towards men be more manifestly shown any way, than that being angry, that is, requiring punishment, yet found a way for our freedom from punishment, having bestowed Christ for that purpose. In that place 2 Cor. 5. about the end, as in that to the Romans, there is found mention of a twofold Reconciliation. The former Reconciliation is that whereby God reconciled all things, or the World to himself by Christ, or in Christ, vers. 18 and 19 The latter is that, unto which the Apostles, as Ministers of Reconciliation, in whom the word of Reconciliation is put, exhort men in the name of God and Christ, vers. 18, 19, 20.  
Therefore that former cannot be Conversion itself; for it is the Antecedent and chief Matter of that word by which conversion is made. Moreover, Paul himself showeth that it consists in the not imputing of sins, that is, in the decree of not imputing them. But now to impute sins, and to forgive them, signify the same thing, Rom. 4.6,7,8. But how is this Decree of not imputing sins founded on Christ? Paul will tell: for God made him that knew no sin to become sin for us. That which Socinus objects, That the not imputing of sins is contrary to that way of reconciling by satisfaction, is without reason: for, as was explained before, satisfaction goes before; afterwards emission and non-imputation of sins follow. It may also be said, that it is not absolutely said that God imputes not sins, but that he imputes them not to them, that is, to the sinners. And that sin may be forgiven to one man, or not be imputed to him, and that it may be imputed to another man for example, or that another man may upon that account be afflicted and punished, it appears sufficiently, both by many things, that we alleged before, and also chief by that which happened to David. And though these are not joined immediately in words, not imputing sins, and he made him that knew no sin to become sin; that doth not make them not to belong to the same thing. For these are joined to one another by conjunctive words (and) and (for) neither doth any new speech and differing from this argument come between: but this is said, that God hath made the Apostles Ambassadors and Ministers of the benefit by him bestowed, to wit, that they were sent for this purpose through the World, that they might plant the Faith of that benefit in men by their preaching. But the strongest argument for making that Faith, is from the delivering up of Christ unto Death: for it is not credible, that God would have had his Son, that was most dear to him, and most innocent, so heavily afflicted, except he had proposed some excellent end unto himself. But this end, to wit, the proper end, and most nearly adhering to that fact, Scripture every where, and reason itself in some respect by induction testifying, can scarcely be any other but the obtaining the right of pardon by antecedent satisfaction: But that, we request you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God; though, according to the nature of the word, it may signify, either cast ye away your hatred towards God, or receive ye the remission of sins, to wit, by repentance, as is showed Mark 1.4. Luke 3.3. Acts 3.19. and 5.31. yet according to the nature of the thing discoursed of, it more rightly admits the latter sense; for a weaker person useth not to be requested to receive more powerful into favour. And those words of Paul express the Ministry of Reconciliation, which Reconciliation he had just now described by the Non-imputation of sins. So Christ himself said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He was sent to proclaim liberty to Captives, Luke 4.18. and commanded the Apostles to preach in his name the remission of sins, Luke 24.47. So Paul himself said, he declared the remission of sins, Acts 13.38. Eph. 2.16. It is written concerning Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he may reconcile both Jews and Gentiles in one Body unto God. This Dative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be governed but by the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But the Interpretation of Socinus, that Deo here may stand by itself, or that reconciliare Deo should be to reconcile them amongst themselves, that they may serve God, is wrested, hard, and without example. Neither is the Argument, drawn thence, of any force, that in that place Paul treats of the Peace made between the Jews and the Gentiles: for it doth not follow, that mention of Peace is unsuitable to this Argument, which is purchased unto them both with God; for the two divers things that are joined, are so joined with one another, that they are first and more eminently joined to the Bond itself: for they are not joined with one another, but by and for the Bond. Therefore the Gentiles and Jews are made Friends with one another through their Friendship with God. And it is wonderful that Socinus doth not acknowledge this, when he says himself, Col. 1.20,21,22. That the Apostle having raised a Discourse concerning the Agreement procured between Creatures, presently and immediately subjoins mention of that Reconciliation by which men are made friends to God, and that by the interposition of the word and, which useth not to join things that have no manner of coherence. Whence it is manifest that these things are joined with one another: so that Paul, in that place to the Ephesians, whereof we treat, did rightly refer the Reconciliation of men with men, unto the Reconciliation of men with God, as an effect to its Cause. That must be added, that in that same place the blood of Christ is named, as by which reconciliation was made. But the Scripture in many places subjoins remission of sins to the blood of Christ, as its most proper effect, Matth. 26.28. Ephes. 1.7 Coloss. 1.14. Hebr. 9.22. Rom. 3.25. and 5.9. 1 John 1.7. 1 Pet. 1.2. Apoc. 1.5. to wit, by a Propitiatory Virtue, 1 John 2.2. and 4.10. Like unto that place to the Ephesi●…s, seems that of which already mention hath been made to the Coloss. 1.20. so that for the explication of that, I think that this rather should be brought, then that Eph. 1.9,10. for very many things agree; what there is said separately by Blood and by Cross, is here said jointly by the Blood of the Cross. There is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, making peace, here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, having made peace; there, that he might reconcile both to God; here, to reconcile all unto himself, that is, God. This is the difference, that there only mention is made of men reconciled with one another, because they were reconciled unto God; but here of men reconciled both with one another, and with Angels, therefore because they were reconciled unto God. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is verily unto himself, as also the Syrian interprets: for if this were the sense of these words, into one, as Socinus would have it, it should have been written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or at least 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; but should not have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is necessarily referred to a certain person. Neither is it a new thing that the Preposition in with an Accusative, is put for a Dative, because amongst the Hebrews there is a very frequent change of the Particles b and l: for by the confession of Socinus himself, it is an usual Phrase amongst the Grecians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that a man is reconciled to another. But no man can deny that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Apostolic Speech is put in the place of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who hath looked into a few places diligently; such as Matth. 15.24. Acts 16.40. Eph. 3.19. and the exchange of the same words may be also frequently observed in profane Writers. Wherefore that is not likely that Socinus would have, that in this Sentence only the Reconciliation of. Creatures with one another is mentioned, but in the following Sentence the Reconciliation of men with God: for contrariways, what is said in the general, vers. 20. that is specially applied to the Colossians, v. 21. which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and you signifies, that is, yea you also, or you yourselves. But in this Sentence that is not said which Socinus says, That Reconciliation was made by making us unblameable; but that we were reconciled, that we might be made unblameable. Socinus made the way of the end, verily very licentiously. The Scripture in many places declares, that sins are forgiven to us, that in time to come we may live holily, being obliged by so great a benefit, Luke 1.17. And it is to be observed, that in this Sentence also there is made mention of the body of Christ, which was broken for us for the remission of sins, 1 Cor. 11.24. Matth. 26.28. and of death, to which likewise, already before we shown, that remission, as an effect, is attributed. But that which the Apostle adds, That we were reconciled, when we were estranged and enemies in our mind, is like that which he said elsewhere, that Christ died for us, when we were sinners and wicked, Rom. 5.6,8. and that, it is God that justifies the ungodly, Rom. 4.5. Wherefore it is so much the more justly believed, that here also the same benefit is treated of; for this was the beginning whereby the Apostle came in to this speech, that we have in Christ redemption, to wit, the remission of sins; and verily it cannot be better understood, how much God and Christ loved us, and how much we are Debtors to God and Christ, than if we consider that the remission of sins was first obtained, and afterwards applied to us, being under the wrath of God, and guilty of sins, which two things the Scripture for the most part joins together. But that which Socinus saith in another place, That it behoved God to be throughly appeased towards us, and not angry at all, before Christ was sent to make a Covenant. How disagreeable unto truth this is, he seems himself elsewhere to have acknowledged, when he said, That at that very moment, when God offered Conditions to renew Friendship with us, he was of a mind not reconciled, but reconcilable. And verily Reason itself teacheth this very thing; for in all conditional things the conditional are before the absolute. Neither should the Condition only be offered, but also fulfilled, before an absolute Act followeth. Wherefore the Scripture saith, We have peace with God, after we are justified by Faith, Rom. 5.1. Before we are sons o wrath, Eph. 2.3. for our sins are the cause of separtion, that is, they make God averse from us, Isai. 59.2. This Anger excludes Peace or Friendship; but not any kind of Love generally so called, as appears John 3.16. and 1 John 4.10. And verily Socinus himself supposeth, That sins are not forgiven to men before repentance. But he cannot be said to be reconciled, or as Socinus expresseth it, throughly reconciled, who yet imputes sins. Which thing, that it may be more clearly understood, there are verily three moments, that I may so say, of Divine Will to be distinguished. The first is before the coming to pass of the Death of Christ, either really, or in the decree and foreknowledge of God. In this moment God is angry at a sinner, but so as he doth not abhor all ways and reasons of laying down his wrath. The second moment is, when Christ's Death is now come to pass: In which God doth not only appoint, but also promise, that he will lay down his wrath. The third is, when a man believes with a true faith in Christ, and Christ, according to the form of the Covenant, commends the Believer to God. Here now God lays down his anger, and receives a man into favour. But because Verbs Active and Passive answering to the same, use to have a twofold signification, either that they are confined within Virtue and Efficacy, or that they include Effect also; it follows that in the first moment neither of these have place, and therefore in respect thereof, God may be called only reconcileable. In the second and third he is rightly said to be reconciled, the two Senses that I mentioned being distinguished. In the former sense God is said to have reconciled the world to himself, and we reconciled to God, when we were Enemies. In the latter is that, Be ye reconciled to God, and we received Reconciliation; and the same is the signification of the words Redemption and Expiation, and that expression, whereby Christ is said sometimes to have died for all, sometimes for some. Moreover that must be observed, that the word Reconciliation doth not exclude Satisfaction, or all Performance and Expense. For in Livius there is, That by that gift he might reconcile unto himself the minds of his Country men: and elsewhere in many places the like may be seen; so that upon that account Christ should no less be called our Reconciler; which very thing the Scripture also shows, when it adds to Reconciliation the mention of Blood.   

CHAP. VIII. Concerning our Redemption purchased by the Death of Christ.  
THat we may come to the second Class of Testimonies, which is of Redemption, before all things it must be put beyond Controversy, that Redemption, and the like words in holy Scripture, are applied to our deliverance from deserved Punishment; which appears to be so, Gal. 3.13. Rom. 3.24. and especially Eph. 1.7. and Coloss. 1.14. neither doth Socinus deny it. Yea, also those places which say that we were redeemed from iniquity and vain conversation, as Tit. 2.14. and 1 Pet. 1.18. belong to the same; for it is a very frequent thing for sin to be put for the punishment of sin. And in that place to Titus the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being added, that is, to expiate, which we shall afterwards explain, and after that in the place of Peter, the mention of a Lamb, that is, a Sacrifice, make this evident; because the Scripture in many places bears witness, that this Redemption is ascribed to the Death of Christ as the cause, as Eph. 1.7. Rom. 3.24. Hebr. 10.12. Socinus could not deny it. But how the Death of Christ is the cause of Redemption, this is it that is in Controversy. For we say, That the Death of Christ is therefore the cause of Redemption, because thereby he moved God to deliver us from punishment: but Socinus denies this thing. But though there were something ambiguous in these Testimonies, in which mention of Redemption is made, it would be sufficient to bring other places of the same Argument for interpreting them, of which sort we have cited many, which signify not obscurely, that Christ died for our sins, suffered punishment for us, and so obtained us the remission of sins, to wit, God being reconciled by his Death; yet we hope that the same Opinion may be proved clearly enough by these places which use the word Redemption, and other like it. Now there is a twofold phrase in Scripture; one which names the Redemption of sins, another which names our Redemption by a divers kind of speaking, but with the same signification.  
That former phrase Hebr. 9.15. where the Death of Christ is said to have been caused 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the redemption of transgressions: but that by this kind of speaking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in Latin culpas, delicta, crimina redimere, to redeem faults, offences, crimes, there is not only signified the Cause moving to deliver, but such also as includes Compensation or Satisfaction; it is so manifest, that Socinus ought to have confessed that also. Therefore sigh this is the most usual signification of that word, it is not allowed us to recede from it, except two things be proved, that sometimes, though less frequently, another thing is signified by that expression, and that there is here just cause, why the less usual signification should be preferred before the more usual. Neither of these is proved by Socinus. For he brings no place of Sacred or Profane Writer, where to redeem transgression, sins, faults, offences, signifies any other thing but that which we said. In the Sentence of Solomon, Prov. 16.6. there is a Hebrew word Chaphar, which doth not properly answer the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: which very thing Socinus also acknowledgeth, when he saith, Expiation rather than Redemption is signified by that word. It may be added, that the most native signification of that word is to cover, and thence it is drawn to other things by a certain resemblance. Neither doth it follow, because the word Chaphar, which among the Hebrews, as many others, because of the penury of primitive words in that tongue, is of many significations, so that it may signify both other things, and also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to redeem, that therefore likewise the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should have all the significations that Chaphar hath, because the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is simple among the Greeks, answering its own Original; but other words of the Greeks express other significations of the word Chaphar. In Dan. 4.24. there is a Hebrew word Pharak, which is not of equal force with the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but both properly and frequently it signifies to tear, to break, to pluck up; and for this also to deliver. Howbeit, though we should interpret redimere in this place with the Ancients, nothing compels to take this word out of the signification that we defend: For God is moved by the fruits of repentance to withhold temporal punishment, as before also hath been observed.  
But the other expression, that signifies the person redeemed, very often in holy Scripture it is found accommodated to our Argument; as Rom. 3.24. Eph. 1.7. and elsewhere. In Greek there is the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and hence the verbal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is asked, Whether this act is attributed properly or improperly to Christ? Socinus defines proper redemption, that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (for otherways the word redimendi in Latin is of many significations) the deliverance of a Captive out of the hands of him that detains him, by giving a price to him that detains him: too narrowly. For both the nature and use of the word is not confined to captivity only, but to every kind of hurt, as also is the word deliverance. Therefore you may more rightly define 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or redemptio, redemption, is the deliverance of a man from an evil by the interposing the payment of a price. So Maro used the word Redemption properly, when he said, 
Si fratrem Pollux alterna morte redemit.  
If Pollux redeemed his brother by alternal death.  Castor is delivered from perpetual death by the alternal death of his brother being interposed: but improperly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and redemptio, redemption, signifies any kind of deliverance; yea, that also which hath no price interposed. But, as Socinus confesseth, and as the Laws teach us, the property of words should not be receded from, but for weighty causes. Therefore in a doubtful case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, redemption should be understood to be made by the interposing a price. But now there is no place for doubting, because the Scripture calls him openly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the price of redemption. For the son of man came, that he might give his soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a price of redemption for many, Matth. 20.28. Mark 10.45. with which places those are to be joined, that bear witness that the Redemption was made by Death in Blood, as Hebr. 9.12. Because these places went strongly against Socinus, he could invent no other thing but to say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or pretium, price, here is said improperly. And he defines a price properly called, that which is received by him that detains. Here first, that which we said just now must be repeated, that property should not be forsaken, unless the matter urge it. But if Socinus brought any Causes of devising improperty, we trust they are confuted by us, Chap. 4, 5, 6. for the comparison made between Moses and Christ scarcely needs an answer, because every similitude hath certain bounds, beyond which it cannot be stretched. They are compared as deliverers, but in respect of the way of delivering, neither doth it more follow from thence, that Christ by satisfying hath not delivered us, than that Christ delivered us by the death of Enemies, because Moses did that. What if the Comparison belonged also to the way of delivering, that it might proceed the better, it should be said, that Christ delivered us by Miracles, as Moses, but not by his own Death, or his own Blood, which neither is ascribed, nor can be ascribed to Moses. But the chiefest thing is, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, price, concerning the force of which we here treat, is added to the deliverance purchased by Moses. For according to the Opinion of Socinus himself, the way of delivering is not the same; for Moses and Joshua and others, delivered not by doing any thing about the persons to be delivered, (which Socinus attributes to Christ) but by removing them that opposed their liberty, to wit, their Enemies; therefore the property of that word should be retained: yet the definition of Socinus being somewhat corrected, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be properly a thing or fact by which any man is moved, that whereas he was inclined to do a man hurt, he suffereth him to be delivered from it. That we call a fact or thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, herein we disagree not with Socinus, who confesseth, that every thing whereby Satisfaction is made to another, is properly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or price, and not money only. But without cause he confines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, price, to captivity only, s●…h that word agrees both to bondage, and banishment, and death, and every inconvenience, from which we can be delivered: for both the Original, to wit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, belongs to those things, and common use is not against it. Moreover, we approve not that, that he would have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly called, to be received by some man. For if the word receiving be taken rigidly, as it useth to be in definitions, it cannot be applied to deeds, but to things only. But Satisfaction may be made, and deliverance obtained by deeds: and this appears chief in deliverance that is made by the translating of punishment. For it appears by those things which we said before, that punishment is not properly received by any man, where we shown, that in punishment no man is properly and naturally a Creditor. Moreover, the word acception properly taken, if it doth not signify the translation of property, yet at least some benefit of the receiver. But in punishment the proper advantage of the punisher is not regarded, but the common good and order of things. Therefore there is here no Receiver, unless you please to call, very improperly, a Judge a Receiver, as one that takes care of Law and Right and Common Good. Nevertheless 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath place properly also in punishment. So the Eye of Zaleucus was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Eye of the Son: and they that are punished in decimation are a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the whole Legion. The ancient Latins, whose whole Tongue was a depravation of the Greek, putting in one letter called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, lustrum, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, lustrare. Therefore lustrare urbem is to free a Town from punishment by a succedaneous punishment, which is also called piaculum. So by the foolish Opinion of the Heathen, the Decii Lustrârunt Romanum exercitum, by their suffering punishment, freed the Roman Army from punishment. And of old Menoeceus suffered punishment for Thebae, concerning whom his Mother in Papinius said; 
Lustralemne feris ego te, puer inclyte, Thebis,  
Devotumque caput, vilis ceu mater alebam?  Did I as a base Mother, nourish thee, O worthy Boy, to make Expiation, and to be Condemned for the cruel City of Thebes? On which place Luctatius or whosoever that ancient Scholiast is, It is the custom of France, to expiate a City. He called that lustrare, which Caesar called placare Deorum immortalium numen, to appease the Deity of the immortal Gods. Therefore placamen and lustrum, which is in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which as the Pagans in a thing falsely believed, so the Apostles in a thing truly believed, used in the same sense. So in the Epistle to the Hebrews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are put for the same thing, as it appears Chap. 9 v. 12,14,15,22,23. Neither is it only there inferred that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Argument should be taken properly, because no efficacious reason compels us to go to improperty, but hence also much more, because no place is brought, either out of Sacred or Profane Writer, in which the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is stretched beyond the description set down by us. Socinus brings no place out of Greek, and out of Hebrew he brings one place only, Prov. 13.8. in which is Chaphar. But besides that Chaphar may be of a larger extent than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies to deliver, whereas Chaphar, as we said before, is a word of many significations, it cannot by any Argument be proved, that in that place any other thing is signified by the word Chaphar, but that which can move him that was about to hurt, that he hurt not; whether he have only the power and affection of hurting, or whether he have also the right and authority. For that of Solomon, Chaphar, or if you would have it so, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a man are his Riches, is like the Sentence in Job 2.4. All that a man hath will he give for his life. For this, amongst other things, is the use of Riches, that they can pacify either the just or unjust anger of many, and so turn away the punishment that hanged over; according to that, 
Munera, crede mihi, placant himinesque Deosque  
Believe me, Gifts appease both Gods and Men.  And verily, in that Sentence there is an elegant comparison of the Advantages that both Fortunes bring with them: The rich man hath that wherewith he may appease the angry man; the poor man is less liable to another man's anger. What if it were very true, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be taken for any charges, yea for such also, by which no man is moved to deliver, (which hath been proved by no example) yet the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which Paul useth 1 Tim. 2.6. is more significant than to admit such a cold interpretation. For the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in composition signifies either contrariety or change; here contrariety hath no place; therefore compensation is signified. Neither are they called in another sense in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who devote themselves unto death for another, that they may deliver him: So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which the deliverer undergoes something like that evil, that hanged over the head of him that is delivered: and there is as it were an excellent periphrasis of that word Galat. 3.13. Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 redeemed us from the curse, being made a curse for us: concerning the sense of which place we treated before. Moreover, Peter compares the Blood of Christ to Gold or Silver, as being something greater than them, upon that very account that it is a price, 1 Pet. 2.18. But Gold and Silver use to be a price truly, and not figuratively: wherefore it is necessary that blood should be as truly, or also much more truly a price. Now a price is that by the expense whereof some thing or right is acquired: and that is the nature of a price, that by its worth or estimation it moves another to grant some thing or privilege, as impunity. To these may be added those places, that show that Christ gave his flesh or himself for the life of the world, and that he might deliver us, John 6.51. Tit. 2.14. for this phrase to give something for something, is very suitable to a true price.  
Socinus cannot invalidate these, and many other places, in which the Death and Blood of Christ are called the price of our deliverance, but by saying that ou● deliverance from punishment is indeed an effect of the death of Christ (for here is no place of treating of the deliverance from the bondage of sin) but in respect of us, not in respect of God, that is, that God is not thereby persuaded to deliver us, but we, that we may come to the deliverance. But both the things that we have said, and also many other things, shut up this refuge from him. For first the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and much more the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are of that nature, that they signify a thing, the effect whereof is about the deliverer before the delivered. Moreover, though to buy is taken sometimes simply for to acquire, as to sell for to enslave; but the word price being added to the word buying (as 1 Cor. 6.20. and 7.23.) requires a nearer similitude. For it most proper to a price that it should be esteemed by any man to be of as great worth as the thing. Moreover, the Apostle expounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rom. 3.24. But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is an act that is exercised about the deliverer before the person to be delivered. And elsewhere, to wit, Hebr. 9.12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is expounded by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, expiation: concerning the force of which word we shall afterwards treat. Add to these things, that when an effect is attributed to a thing very frequently, and so that it was never found attributed to other things, (as the effect of Redemption is referred to the Death and Blood of Christ, Gal. 3.13. Matth. 20.28. Mark. 10.45. Tit. 2.14. Hebr. 9.15. Apoc. 5.9. and 20.28. Rom. 3.24. Eph. 1.7.) than it is necessary that an end more proper, and near than common and remote, should be understood. But about us, the effect of deliverance is both removed many degrees from the Death of Christ, and also so far from being proper, that is agrees much more to other things to which it useth not to be ascribed. For any thing that Socinus saith of the connexion of our deliverance with the Death of Christ may be summarily explained thus: Deliverance (as he thinks) follows from holiness of life, holiness from the hope of reward: Hope firstly and chief proceeds from the Resurrection; but it is attributed unto Death, either in respect that it is a way to the Resurrection, and compared with it, it confirms the same hope. Whence it follows (Socinus also confessing it) that we are much more delivered by the Resurrection, then by the Death of Christ. Yea, if we acknowledge the truth, Death is only joined with that effect by accident; for the Resurrection makes not Faith, but as it is a part of the Glory of Christ: but the greatest glory could have happened to Christ, though he had not been dead: But that Christ by suffering showed us an example that we should follow, that cannot at all be applied to the remission of sins, that happened not to Christ. Wherefore then is that so often repeated mention of Death in this business of Redemption? Socinus brings two things; first, because in Death there is some Expense, which is not in the Resurrection, therefore the mention of Death is fit for Redemption: also because the Love of God and Christ is more declared by Death. As touching the first, we go back to the same thing; for if by the Death of Christ the effect of our deliverance did not follow of itself (which is the profession of Socinus himself, expressed in manifest words) there was no need that Christ and his Apostles should have mentioned either Redemption or Price, especially so often: sigh Deliverance might be expressed more conveniently in other words. But that other consideration, though it may belong to those Sentences that commemorate the Love of God, yet is not very suitably brought to explain other Sentences which do not, nor yet the very word Redemption. It may also here be mentioned, that Love is not showed by this thing, because it was not so much the cause, as the naked occasion of our good. Socinus thinks he pursueth our Opinion, when he says, That the Scripture so treats of the Redemption purchased by the Death of Christ, that it sets something manifest before the eyes, but not that it may declare some hidden Virtue, such as he thinks that to be which we deduce from Scripture. But when he says this, he wounds not us, but rather furnishes us with a Dart against themselves. For those things which are God's, who knows but the Spirit of God, and he to whom he will reveal them, 1 Cor. 2.10,11. But that the Death of Christ is procured by God for this purpose, that the punishment of our sins might be required of him, and that he might become our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Isaiah said it long before, Christ himself said it, neither did the holy Rites in the Old Covenant signify any other thing. So that he who should take notice of these things, could not be ignorant of God's Will and Decree about this business: though I may now also say, that Nature itself says, that Death is the wages of sin. This Will of God being known by Oracles, there is afterwards gathered the great love of God towards us, as John speaks 1 Epist. 4.10. and Paul Rom. 5.10. Neither is it any other thing that is signified by the word witness, 1 Tim. 2.6. as it is easy to understand by those things that go before, vers. 4. And verily the words of Scripture themselves, simply understood, bring these things with them: whereas it is so impossible for any man to gather that consequence of deliverance from Death, which Socinus deduceth through so many Degrees, and so variously, from the words of Scripture themselves, that it cannot be easily understood out of Socinus himself, what he would have to be the proper sense of Scripture in these Expressions.  
Therefore true Redemption hath been proved by us, as just now true Reconciliation hath been proved. But either of those being proved, that which is intended is proved, to wit, That we are delivered by the punishment of Christ, which he paid for our sins. Not that all Redemption and Reconciliation is such, but because the subject matter admits of no other. Therefore it is vain, and nothing to the purpose, that Socinus so often says, both that a man may be appeased, though nothing is performed; and also that a man may be truly redeemed that owes nothing, and therefore without payment. For we treat of that Propitiation and Redemption, which the Scripture declares to be made by the performance of something, to wit, by Death, and of that Redemption, by which the same Scripture testifies, that we are delivered from deserved punishment: but such a performance, which frees the Debtor of punishment from punishment, is both rightly and properly called Satisfaction; which Socinus seeing, that he might take away Satisfaction, he took away also Propitiation and true Redemption.  
Here I think good to censure some other things, which he did not discourse of whilst he handled the Argument of Redemption; yet he discoursed of them elsewhere, as belonging to this Argument. He would not have the word Mediator to signify any other thing in the holy Scripture but the Interpreter of God. Two places do persuade me of another thing; the one 1 Tim. 2.5. where there is said to be one Mediator of God and Men, Jesus Christ, who gave himself an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for all. The other Hebr. 9.15. where Christ is called the Mediator of the New Covenant, that Death intervening for the Redemption of Transgressions, they, that are called, might obtain eternal life. To which fitly may be added a third Hebr. 12.24. which shall be discoursed of afterwards: it appears here, that Mediation is placed in Redemption itself; neither is the word contrary. For it belongs no less to the Office of a Mediator, to be in the room of Men with God, than to be in the room of God with Men. Neither is a Mediator only among the unlearned called, he that appeaseth a man, but also amongst those, who speak elegantly. Whence Suidas interpreted that word Peacemaker.  
Elsewhere Socinus says, The dignity of the Person makes nothing for the estimation of the punishment, and consequently that the Divine Nature of Christ, and his great Perfection, brings no value to the punishment. But we believe otherways: to wit, that this punishment was thence to be esteemed, that he who suffered the punishment was God, though he suffered not as God. For hitherto belongs that Expression, whereby God is said to have purchased the Church with his own Blood, Acts 20.23. After which manner also elsewhere the Lord of Glory is said to have been crucified, 1 Cor. 2.8. Also the Dignity of the whole Person, that is, Christ, contributes not a little to this estimation: Therefore in the Scripture it is called emphatically the Blood of the Lord, 1 Cor. 11.27. the Blood of Christ, Hebr. 9.14. The blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God, 1 John 1.7. both the most perfect innocency and holiness of Christ comes into the same estimation. Hence it is called precious blood, to wit, of the Lamb without blame, 1 Pet. 1.19. making allusion to the custom, received not only by the Hebrews, but also the Gentiles, that they sacrificed Beasts excellent for whiteness, and all beauty of Body, which because they were exempted from the whole Flock, thence by a word invented in holy things, but presently translated to profane, they were called eximiae, excellent. To the same purpose belong these also, My righteous servant shall justify many, Isai. 53.11. He made him that knew no sin, to become sin, 2 Cor. 5.21. But that Socinus disputes, because the Divinity itself doth not suffer, therefore that this comes not into the consideration of punishment, it is just as if you should say, that it is the same thing, whether you strike a private Person or a King, also whether you strike an unknown Person or a Father, because strokes are directed to the Body, not to the Dignity of the Person, which gross Error long since Aristotle hath confuted. Also the common-Judgment dissents from Socinus. For those People, whose Laws are most praised, esteemed punishments by the dignity of the Persons and other Attributes. Wherefore according to the Laws of the Romans, which are known evidently to be very full of equity, Punishments are varied according to the Condition of the Persons; and it hath been abundantly demonstrated by them, that did write of Commonwealths, that other Nations, famous for Wisdom, did not otherways appoint. And the Interpreters of the Roman Law prove it.   

CHAP. IX. What doth it import that Christ died for us.  
IN the third Class we did put those Testimonies which intimate Subrogation, as when Christ is said to have tasted death for all men, Hebr. 2.9. died for the people, John 11.50. suffered for us, 1 Pet. 2.21. died for us wicked and sinners, Rom. 5.7,8. one died for all, 2 Cor. 5.14. It is received in every Tongue, that when a Person did or suffered a thing in the room and place of another, it is said, that he suffered, or did that for him. So it is in Terentius, I will lead thee, (pro) instead of him; I will grind (pro) for thee. Neither is this phrase only applied to persons, but also to things; for that is said to be given, put, or had for him, which in his stead or room is given, put or had. Socinus declines this Interpretation by the ambiguity of the word pro for, which often signifies only the profit of another; which is true of the Latin word, as also of the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is ●ound in Matthew 20.28. and Mark 10.45. wholly rejects this signification, and requires commutation. So evil is said to be rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for evil, 1 Pet. 3.9. Rom. 12.17. an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, Matth. 5.38. so a Serpent given for a Fish, Luke 11.15. the birthright for one morsal, Hebr. 12.16. hair for a covering, 1 Cor. 11.15. But as oft as that Particle is applied to Persons, it signifies that one succeeded into the place of another. So Archelaus is said to have reigned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the room of Herod his Father, that is, that he succeeded him in the Kingdom, Matth. 2.22. so Peter is commanded to give a piece of money for himself and Christ, Matth. 17.27. because he alone in that action supplied the room of two. Neither is it otherways in profane Writers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one in the room of many, and the like. Here Socinus, being in a straight, dares not deny that a certain change is signified, by that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for many. But he miserably seeks an escape. When the Redemption is discoursed of, saith he, there is place for that Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though a Captive owes nothing for Redemption. This is true, but not to the purpose. For we do not from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 directly infer payment; but we gather from thence that Christ died in our stead; that is, unless Christ had died, we should have died, and because Christ died, we shall not die an eternal Death. For verily the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being joined to a Person and the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 requires that a Person expressed in the Genitive was to give the same in Gender or Species, which now another gave. Neither is it any difference, whether it be lawfully, as in a Bond for Debt, or unlawfully, as in him that is taken by High-way-men; but this being granted, that it would come to pass that we should have been put to death, unless Christ had died: the payment is afterwards rightly gathered from the very nature of the thing. For either we were to have been unjustly put to death, or justly: not unjustly, for we had deserved death; therefore justly. If justly, than we were debtors of death. Christ procured us deliverance from this debt by giving something. But to give something, that another by that same may be delivered from a Debt, is to pay or satisfy. Therefore that expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to give for many, signifies a true exchange, as always; not a metaphorical, which Socinus invents without example.  
But touching the other Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it must be observed, that it also not always, but often signifies the same that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Paul wisheth to be, accursed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, in room of the Jews, whom otherways persevering in their unbelief, he knew would be accursed, Rom. 9.3. The Apostles are Ambassadors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Christ, that is, they are Ambassadors in the room of Christ himself, 2 Cor. 5.20. Wherefore seeing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 necessarily signifies exchange, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 useth sometimes to be put for the same, nothing forbids to interpret a word of a doubtful notation from a certain, chief when the same Argument is treated of. But especially that place 2 Cor. 5.14. seems to require that interpretation, If one died for all, then are all dead. Moreover, though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of itself ambiguous, had not been used in these places, but it had been openly said, that Christ died for our good, by this very thing that exchange should not have been excluded, but rather inclued, other places being compared. For he also who dies for this purpose, that thereby he may deliver another from death, dies for his good. Neither can this sense be rejected, because the fact of Christ is proposed to us for example. For unto an example it is sufficient that there be a certain general similitude, though the difference be in a special respect, of which nevertheless mention sometimes is made for denoting the thing more certainly. Which is manifestly evident from the Exhortation of Peter, 1 Pet. 2.19. he would have us be patiented in bearing afflictions, which we suffer innocently. He brings the example of Christ, who, said he, himself also suffered. This was sufficient for a comparison: but he added, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for us, which belongs not the comparison, but clearly expresseth the thing itself, that is, the suffering of Christ. Therefore Patience is a common thing; but that manner is different. Otherways Paul should in vain ask, if Paul was crucified for believers, 1 Cor. 1.13. for he also could have been crucified for the Church, that is, for the use of the Church, as he said he suffered for the Church, Col. 1.24. and afterward he himself was for the great good of the Church beheaded, Peter and other Apostles crucified. But neither Paul, nor any other man, could be crucified in that manner that Christ was, by suffering punishment in our stead. Therefore that word pro expresseth here something peculiar, which cannot be communicated to the Apostles. But it could, if the benefit of Christ's death were distinguished only by degree from the death of the Apostles, and not also in its proper end. So also in the Epistle to the Hebrews 2.10. there is an example in it, that Christ came to glory by Sufferings: the special manner is in that, that Christ suffered for every man, vers. 9 And as in those places patience, so in other places love is commended to us by the same example of Christ, but the special manner doth more openly express the deed of Christ. Though if you will look more exactly into those places, we shall see that not so much the act of death, as the danger of death, is there regarded, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which only John useth, 10, 11, 15. and 1 John 3.16, as also John 13.37, and 38. also John 15.13. is not properly there to lose life, but as it were to put it in pledge, that is, to undergo the danger of death. Therefore in those places, that very thing that is prescribed to us, contains not only the benefit of another, but also a certain exchange, to wit, in that sense, which Horace expressed in these Verses: 
Paratus omne Caesaris periculum Subire, Moecenae, tuo  
Being prepared to undergo all dangers of Caesar, Maecenas, with thine.   
But in the saying of Caiaphas, not only as a Prophecy dropped from him at unawares, but also according to his Opinion, a certain true substitution was expressed. For he feigned the inevitable destruction of the Jews, if Christ should be permitted to live: and on the contrary, if Christ should be slain, that certain safety should be obtained for this very thing: Therefore he desired to substitute really the death of Christ to a destruction otherways hanging over. And so he would have the same in kind to befall Christ with that which was otherways to happen to the people; and he believed that the death of Christ was a near cause of the deliverance of the People, and fit of itself. Which is the same thing as if you should say, he would have Christ perish in the room of the People, that was otherways (that is, under a contrary condition) to perish. Here it must be marked by the by, that Caiaphas did put the first effect of the death of Christ, not about the Jews, whose deliverance he sought, but about the Roman Governors, whose Anger he desired to escape. So that if it be true which Socinus urgeth, that such an interpretation of the words of Caiphas should be taken, which may answer both the mind of the Holy Spirit and his mind, this dying for the people must needs signify, that safety was to be obtained from another: but that other, according to the mind of the Holy Ghost, can be none but God: whence it follows, it is exercised about God, before it is exercised about men, which Socinus stubbornly denies. But those things that have been hitherto said by us, concerning the signification of exchange in the Particle pro, for, are much illustrated by the the nature of the Expiatory Sacrifice. For in those the Scripture and common Opinion of Nations do witness, that blood is given for life: which shall now be made manifest.   

CHAP. X. Concerning the Expiation made by the Death of Christ.  
THere remains the last rank of Testimonies, which signify that Christ's Death is an Expiatory Sacrifice: which because by the Artifice of Socinus they are involved in many Mists, we reserved them for the last place, that they might receive some light from these things that have been said before. We and Socinus are agreed concerning the word: that Christ's Death was an Expiatory Sacrifice, or a Sacrifice for Sin, the Divine Epistle to the Hebrews testifying the same, especially cap. 9 But of the proper force of that word Socinus thinks one way, and the Church of Christ another way. The disagreement shall be briefly and perspicuously so explained, if we say, that according to Socinus the effect of expiation first and properly is exercised about sins to come; because the Death of Christ by ingenerating Faith, draws us from sins: but in respect of bypast sins only secondarily, and in that respect also all this action is exercised about us, not about God, that is, that God is not moved to pardon, but we are prepared to receive remission, to wit, by the Amendment of Life: but according to the Opinion of the Church, which agrees to Scripture, the effect of expiation is properly exercised about by past sins, and the first action is about God, who is moved to forgive. That the first action is exercised about God, not about Men, it is proved from the nature of Priesthood. For a Priest is appointed for Men in the things of God, Hebr. 5.1. but not for God in the things of Men, which is the Office of a Prophet. And because Sacrifice, especially Expiatory, Sacrifice, is an act of the Priest as such, (for a Highpriest is appointed for this purpose, that he may offer Sacrifices for sins, Hebr. 5.1. 8.3.) it follows that Sacrifice belongs to those things, which are performed for Man with God.  
But the whole matter will be made more manifest by comparing the Sacrifices of the Old Law with this Sacrifice, of which comparison the Writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews is an Author unto us, and elsewhere the Prophets and Apostles. The ancient Law is considered two manner of ways: either carnally or spiritually. Carnally, as it was an Instrument of the Commonwealth of the Jews. Spiritually, as it had a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, shadow of things to come, Hebr. 10.1. As touching the former consideration, the Expiatory Sacrifices of the Law sanctified unto the purifying of the flesh, Hebr. 9.13. which, of what sort it is, we shall explain. The Law of God had this sanction: he is accursed that abides not in all the words of the Law, Deut. 27.26. Gal. 3.10. therefore he shall be guilty of punishment, whosoever in the least shall deviate from the Law, as James shows, James 2.10. This Punishment, according to a carnal sense, was violent death: which is evident from the contrary, because life is promised to him that fulfils the Law, Leu. 18.5. Gal. 3.12. But as in every Commonwealth rightly governed, the King requires punishment by his Judges, and if they fail, by himself: So in the Hebrew Commonwealth, which Josephus rightly called Theocratia, (because God was its King, Judg. 8.23. 1 Sam. 8.7.) God ordinarily required the punishments of the Law by Judges: yet so, that he himself required the same punishment, if the Judges failed in their duty. Let the people, saith he, stone him; or, I setting my angry face against that man, will cut him off, Leu. 20.3. Neither did he only threaten this, but also often performed it, as it appears by many Examples of the Old Testament. But because a Lawyer may somewhat relax his own Law, especially Penal, God, the King of the Hebrews, in some Crimes admitted Expiatory Sacrifices in the room of the sinner himself, and by these, and no other ways, would he free the sinner from the punishment of death. He that swore rashly deserved death by the Law, Exod 20.7. but it might be expiated by a Sacrifice, Leu. 5.5. The Priest shall make Atonement for him, saith the Law, and it shall be forgiven him: So he that had been unfaithful in a thing entrusted to him, or in Society, or had deceived another, or had stolen any thing, he was guilty, saith the Law, Levit. 5.23. to wit, by the Edict, which is extant Exod. 20.15,16, and 17, but the same guilty person, besides the restitution of the damage, to which he was obliged, unto the person wronged, he was expiated by giving a Sacrifice, and that which he did was forgiven, Leu. 5.26. and in many places these are joined together, Expiation and Remission, Numb. 15.28. Leu. 4.20. 5.13,18,26. Therefore in some Crimes, as touching carnal punishments, there was admitted an Atonement, a Redemption, a Satisfaction, also a Compensation made by the death of a Beast for the death of a man otherways due. But the Law did not generally admit such a relaxation of carnal punishment in all Crimes: unto which Paul having respect, said, that remission of sins was declared by Jesus, (to wit, a spiritual remission) and he that believes is justified in him, from all things from which the Jews in the Law of Moses could not be justified, no not carnally, Acts 13.38. which an ancient Writer of Answers to the Orthodox explains) which use to be ascribed to Justin. But other Crimes having been committed to the hurt of the Commonwealth, (to wit, great and less tolerable) or of the life of men, it gives not (to wit, the Law) an Atonement of such Offences, neither by washing, nor the sacrificing of Beasts, but gives a just and worthy recompense to them that offended by an equal punishment. Life, saith it, for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: but where the equality of the reward is unseemly, there it renders to the Offenders death by fire, or stone, or sword: for it destroys the daughter of the Priest, committing whoredom by fire, but the daughter of a Layman by stoning, but the married by sword. And the Law had no power, through mercifulness to mankind, to save any of such by Washings and Sacrifices. And the Masters of the Hebrews observed not amiss, Psalm 51.18. that David for Murder or Adultery promised no Sacrifice, because the Law had set forth no Expiation for those Crimes. But that which we said before, that in Expiation the Death of a Beast was substituted for the death of a Man, that same thing is manifest also by that which Deut. 2. is appointed, that, when the  is not fowd, the People should be expiated by the kill of a Beast: where also the word. (to expipiate) is explained, Expiate thy people, O God, and impute not innocent blood unto them. Otherways the Land could not be expiated from blood that was shed, but by the blood of him that shed it, as saith the Law, Numb. 35.34. Unto this place may be added the other, Levit. 17.11. The life of all flesh is in the blood, and I have appointed it for you on the Altar, to make Atonement for your lives; for it is blood that makes Atonement for the life. Also a third, Leu. 10.17. where the Sacrifice is said to bear their iniquities, the force of which phrase we have elsewhere explained. Socinus is not willing to acknowledge this subrogation, or to confess that God was moved any way by Sacrifices, that he might not punish sin. And that he may prove that, he brings these two things; That the Errors of men could not be punished in Beasts, because there is not a common Species between Men and Beasts: and That nothing can be given to God, who is Lord of all. Of which the former is false: for as an individual difference, as they speak, hinders not, but another may suffer for another man's sin, provided the inflicting of the evil is not of itself unjust, (as hath been showed before) so neither will the diversity of Species hinder a Beast, which otherways also might be justly killed, to be bestowed for an Example, that in the death thereof it may appear what man hath deserved. Neither are Man and Beast joined only in the genus of a living Creature, but also in that relation that is between a possessor and a thing possessed. For a Beast is in the general under humane possession, and he that was to be expiated, was particularly commanded to give a Sacrifice of his own, Leu. 5.6,7. But the other is nothing to the purpose. For neither doth it follow, that if nothing comes to God by Sacrifice, therefore God is not moved by Sacrifice. For by this very thing God is well-pleased, that a man defrauds himself of a thing granted unto him for the honour of the Name of God: and it was elsewhere showed that Satisfaction useth to be made as by punishment, so by some acceptable and pleasing action. But that in Sacrifice not only the thing is rewarded, but the mind of the Offerer, both Scripture declares, and the Heathen themselves believed. Neither in Sacrifices, saith Seneca, though they be fat and overshine Gold, is the honour of the Gods, but in the pious and right will of the worshipper. Whence also the Scripture, treating of the Death of Christ, makes mention sometimes of Love, sometimes of Obedience. By these things, which we have said, it is now evident how Sacrifices for sin in the Old Covenant did expiate sins, to wit, by moving God to forgive a Carnal punishment, and that by a certain Satisfaction. But what the Types performed carnally, this Christ the Antitype performs spiritually, and what the Types did in some sins, that Christ did in all, to wit, by moving God to forgive a Spiritual punishment, and that by a most perfect Satisfaction. For there is always more, and not less, in the thing signified by the Type, than in the Type; as reason shows. That is common to the Expiatory Sacrifice of the Law and the Sacrifice of Christ, that there is no remission without shedding of blood, Hebr. 9.22. The Divine Writer in the same place calls this obtaining of remission by blood sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sanctification, vers. 13. sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Purification, vers. 14. and 22, and 23. But in the Old Law the Sacrifices were Beasts, vers. 12. in this of ours, Christ himself is not only Priest, but Sacrifice, vers. 14. and 24. That Legal Expiation was a Representation and Antitype of this Celestial and Spiritual. How? because that brought cleannesses to the flesh, that is, the taking away of guilt: but not to the Spirit or Conscience: but this brings it to the Conscience itself, because that which was in the Old Law a Temporal Death, this in the New Covenant is Eternal Death, Hebr. 10.29. and therefore there was there a Temporal Deliverance, but here an Eternal Redemption, Hebr. 9.12. Wherefore, as in the same place an Argument is produced from the effect of the Legal Sacrifice, to the effect of this. That was offered by the Spirit. How much more, etc. vers. 14. So it is allowed to us to argue after this manner most certainly: the Legal Sacrifice took away carnal guiltiness, by moving God to remission, therefore much more the Sacrifice offered by the Spirit, takes away spiritual guilt, by moving God also to remission.  
Unto the same purpose belong those places in which Christ is called a Lamb. Neither would it be much to the purpose, though Lambs had not been used to be sacrificed in the Law for sin. For so also it would have been lawful for holy men to name one Beast for another, that both the comparison might consist in the general signification of a Beast, and a Lamb rather than a Ram or a Goat, being named, the innocency of the Sacrifice might be expressed. For therefore also Peter added, without blame or spot, 1 Pet. 1.19. and at the same time, by a certain compend of words there might have been an eye upon the Prophecy of Isai. 53.7. in the interpretation whereof was the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Acts 8.32. But it is also certain, that a Lamb was used in the expiating of Pollutions, Leu. 14.12. Numb. 6.12. which Pollutions in the Old Law, so nearly resembled sin, that they also received the name of sin. Whence also that Lamb in both places is said to be offered for guilt or sin. And in the other place it is expressly added, because he sinned about the dead body. The effect also is the same in some respect. For persons defiled were not admitted to the Society of the Jewish Commonwealth, but by such an Expiation: Moreover, the Sacrifice of the Passover, (which it is certain was for the most part a Lamb, Exod. 12.5.) in its first institution, had something Expiatory. For God saith, that he looking on the blood thereof, would turn away from the Hebrews that destruction, which otherways they were to have had common with the Egyptians, (by the imitation of whom they had defiled themselves) Exod. 12.13. Hebr. 11.28. But also the Law shows that a Lamb was used to be offered for sin, to wit, the sin of a rash Oath, Leu. 5.4,6. But when Christ is called a Lamb, not only Peter shows, that a Sacrifice is understood, saying, that we were redeemed by the blood of a Lamb, I Pet. 1.18. but also John in the Revelation in many places, and amongst others, where he says he was slain, Rev. 5.6. 9.11. and 13.8. But no other Sacrifice, but a Sacrifice for sin, can be understood, because as Peter witnesseth, it was Redemptory. Such is only Sacrifice for sin. Whence it is more than manifest, that when the Baptist said, Christ was the Lamb, which took away the sins of the World. John 1.29. Sins past are there treated of, not future; and the taking away of sins, by the obtaining of remission with God, not by the ingenerating of Faith. Neither is it true that Socinus says, That only the Highpriest did bear the figure of Christ, and only the anniversary Expiation the figure of his Sacrifice: for though there was a more excellent figure in the Highpriest, and that solemn Sacrifice, which therefore the Holy Spirit pursues with a singular care in the Epistle to the Hebrews, yet it cannot be denied, that other Priests and other Expiatory Sacrifices looked the same way more obscurely. That same Epistle shows this, cap. 9 vers. 13. where every carnal purification by Sacrifice, is compared with the spiritual purification by Christ. And much more verse 21. and the following verses, where, after it had been said in the general, that almost all things in the Law are purged by Sacrifice, and that there is no remission of sins without shedding of blood, there is afterwards subjoined, therefore there was a necessity that the resemblances of Celestial things should be purged by these things. So also chap. 10. vers. 11. daily Sacrifices are compared with the Sacrifice of Christ: the sense of which place Socinus overthrows, expounding daily, for yearly, without example. For that he brings a place, Hebr. 7.27. to confirm this Interpretation, it is vain, because he falsely pretends that the Priest ought to have offered for himself in the Anniversary Sacrifice only. For on the contrary, he ought to have offered for himself, as oft as he was conscious to himself of sin, Leu. 4.3. Also he shows that the Sacrifice of the Passover was a figure of the Sacrifice that was performed by Christ, John 19.36. and Paul 1. Cor. 5.7.  
But though these things could suffice, yet I think good to explain somewhat more plentifully the native of an Expiatory Sacrifice according to the common understanding of the Heathen, or rather according to the most ancient Tradition, spread abroad through all the Earth. It cannot be doubted, that there were Sacrifices before the Law of Moses under the state of the Natural Law, as it is called, the Rites whereof having been commanded by God, those that survived the Flood, being dispersed through all the Earth, transmitted unto Posterity: and Religion remained for some time uncorrupted, not only among the Posterity of Shem, but also Japhet, (perhaps also Ham) until the worship of many, and therefore false Gods succeeded in its room: but then also having changed their God, the Rites and Ceremonies remained, being translated from a pious, to a wicked use; a great testimony against themselves of the Truth being received, but detained in unrighteousness, as saith the Apostle, Rom. 1.18. Therefore those Nations esteemed it for a certain thing, that the Gods were offended and angry at the sins of Men: and that from this Anger great Calamities, partly private, and partly public, used to follow. See that excellent Book of Plutarch, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, concerning those that were heavily punished by God; in which, if instead of Gods you writ God, you will find many things, worthy to be said by a Christian. That Anger was gathered from Causes or Effects. From Causes, if any wicked Deeds came to be known. From Effects, Foretokens, Prodigies, and Celestial Signs. See Cicero concerning the Answers of Soothsayers, Lucan 1. of Pharsalia; the Greek and Roman Historians in many places. Yet they hoped this Anger could be turned away by certain Sacrifices. By these the Deity was said to be reconciled, the guilty, whether it was one person, or a whole people to be purged, or, according to the ancient word, to be februated, and the sin itself to be expiated or cleansed.  
Wherefore the same Sacrifices were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Propitiatory, Cleansing, and Purifying, and in Latin placamina, februa, piamina, Propitiations, Cleansings, Expiations. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to propitiate, is applied by Homer and others very often to Sacrifices. There is in Plutarch concerning Romulus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to cleanse the City with purge: this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is also called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In Herodotuus lib. 1. the Phrygian Adrastus, being polluted with Manslaughter, needed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Expiatory Sacrifice: Croesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, expiated him. And he saith, there is the same way of Expiating amongst the Lydians and Greeks. In Hermogenes there is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, neither purged from iniquities. Plat. 2. de Rep. said, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Abolishments and Cleansings of unrighteousness are put for the same. Plutarch, concerning the Romans, interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is averrunca, things that turned away the Divine Anger. There is nothing more frequent in Virgil, and others, than the word placandi, of appeasing in holy things: the force whereof Horace so expresseth. 
Mactata veniet mitior hostia.  
She will come meeker, Sacrifice being slain.  Livius hath often Pacem Deos exposcere, to beg peace of the Gods. Plinius saith, Beasts are acceptable in the Atonement of the Gods. Ovid, primo Fastorum, saith, the Gods are reconciled to man by Sacrifices: which word we shown before to signify the same with the word placandi, of making Atonement: to purge and purify being translated from the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is taken thence, because guiltiness seems to be a certain uncleanness. The word purifying is in Suetonius and Plinius. Lucan said, Purgare moenia lustro; but lustrare is more received; concerning the Original whereof we spoke before. So lustrare exercitum is in Livius. Ovid expoundeth it by expurgare, 13 Met. 
— Ego lustror ab illis,  
Expurgante nefas novies mihi carmine dicto.  
I'm purified by them,  
Nine times a sin-purging Verse having been to me.  Servius in Virgil, Lustramurque Jovi, and we are purified to Jupiter, 3 Aen. he expounds it, we are purged, we are expiated. Seneca in Troas, himself explains lustrale sacrum quo piantur rates, a purifying Sacrifice wherewith Ships are expiated. And Papinius called Menoeceus, Caput lustrale, a purifying head, which he so expounds, 
Terrigenam cuncto patriae pro sanguine poscunt:  
They require the earth born man for all the Counreys blood.  Also, 
— Date gaudia Thebis  
Quoe pepigi, & toto quae sanguine prodigus emi.  
— Give joy to Thebes,  
Which I covenanted, and which I bought with all the blood.  Therefore lustrale sacrum, a purifying Sacrifice, is that which buys blood, that is, which redeems by blood: which belongs to the proving of those things, which were formerly disputed by us concerning Redemption. And it must be observed in the first place, that when Expiatory Sacrifices are discoursed of, there is mention made of Blood, because, according to the most ancient Law of God given to Noah, Gen. 9.4. and thence propagated to all people, Blood is instead of the Life, and therefore is called by the name of Life. Hence that of Virgil, 
Sanguine quaerendi reditus, animáque litandum:  
With Blood Returns must be sought, and Expiation made by Life.  Which words Macrobius explaining out of Trebatius, saith, Those Sacrifices are called Animal, or belonging unto life. Sins themselves are properly said to be expiated, that is, to be satisfied for, whether by paying the due punishment, or another thing that succeeds into the place of due punishment. As behold in Virgil: 
— Et culpam miserorum morte piabunt.  
They will expiate the fault by the death of those miserable wretches.  that is, they shall cause them to be punished. Plinius, Wars use to expiate the luxury of the people. Cicero, The Immortal Gods expiated thy crimes upon our Soldiers. And in the same, there is often scelera supplicio expiare, to expiate crimes with punishment: and in Sallust, to expiate slaughter with slaughter, and blood with blood: yea also, the word supplicium was first in holy things, whence it was translated to punishment. But in Sacrifices piare is to expiate, by the succession of another thing into the place of due punishment.  
Hence Plautus: 
Men' piaculum oportet fieri propter stultitiam tuam,  
 meum tergum stultitiae tuae suba'as succedaneum.  
Should I be made a Sacrifice for thy folly.  
That thou may'st put my back in the room of thine, for thy folly.   
Hence Cato: 
Cùm sis ipse nocens, moritur cur victimo pro te?  
When thou art faulty thyself, why dies a Sacrifice for thee?  Where for thee signifies in thy place. And in the same place he saith, Those that offer Sacrifices, hope for their own safety by the death of another. Hence the Sacrifices themselves are properly piacula. Ea prima piacula sunto, Virg. Aen. 6. Make these the first Sacrifices. Téque piacula nulla resolvent: And no Sacrifices will expiate thee: Horatius. Which also Ovid called piamina. 
Februa Romani dixêre piaminá Patres.  
The Roman Fathers called Expiations Februa.  The force of which word he himself presently expressed, quo crimina nostra piantur, whereby our Crimes are expiated: and Plinius called those things piamenta. Improperly piacula are crimina propter quae piacula debentur, Crimes for which Sacrifices are due. As Servius well observed on that Verse of Virgil: 
Distulit in seram commissa piacula mortem.  
He deferred his Crimes he committed unto a late death.  But though, as we said, piare properly is here to suffer punishment, and therefore is properly said of the guilt itself and debt, yet it began to be taken for words of a near signification, placare, lustrare, to make Atonement, to purify by Sacrifice. So Cicero said, Cereris numen expiandum. So Livius, that the manifest murder might be expiated by some Sacrifice, his Father was commanded, ut filium expiaret, that is, lustraret, to purge his Son by Sacrifice, So Seneca in Troas said, piare rates, that is, lustrare, to make Atonement for the Ships. Also in another Author, prodigia piare, to expiate the Prodigies, for the wickednesses for which the Anger that was raised, was declared by Prodigies. There is a place where the Jews are discoursed of by the same Author: There happened Prodigies which the Nation that is subject to Superstition, and an Enemy to Religion, judged unlawful to expiate by Vows or Sacrifices. Where by the by that may be observed, we said before, That the Expiations in the Law of the Jews, were not set forth to expiate every kind of anger of God. By these things it manifestly appears, that purging Sacrifices and Expiations belonged to the appeasing of the Deity, and so to the obtaining impunity of the sins that had been committed: which Plinius so expresseth, An ancient Opinion obtained in former times that all things are Februa, whereby the guiltinesses of evil deeds might be purged, and sins taken away. Neither must that remarkable place of Porphyrius, concerning Expiatory Sacrifices be omitted: for all Divines have agreed in this; That in Expiatory Sacrifices they should not have touched the things sacrificed, and that they should use purge. None went into the City, or into his own House, unless first he washed his Garment or Body in a River or Fountain. That which he says the Divines agreed in, that they should wash their Garments who touch Expiatory Sacrifices, it agrees with the Law delivered by Moses to the Jews, as appears Leu. 16.26, and 28. But because these Nations were not ignorant by the guidance of Nature, that the greater the thing was, that was given to God, so much the more easily pardon might be obtained; especially if there were some equality of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with that which was redeemed. Therefore they proceeded from the sacrificing of , in making Expiations to the sacrificing of Men. Caesar treating of the Frenchmen, explains the Cause: They think that the Deity of the Immortal Gods cannot be reconciled, unless the life of men be rendered for the life of man. The Canaanites are found the first of all that practised this, that is, the Phoenicians. For concerning them we read in holy Scripture, that they were used to reconcile Moloch by killing their own Children. That Moloch was Saturn, as the Masters of the Hebrews rightly explain. Porphyrius tells, That the History of the Phoenicians, written by Sanchuniatho, abounded with such Narrations. A part of these are Tyrians, amongst whom it was usual of old, that a Boy of noble Birth was sacrificed to Saturn. Curtius tells, lib. 3. the same rightly observes, that the Carthaginians, that were Inhabitants with the Tyrians, received that Sacrifice from the Builders: concerning whom is that of Ennius; 
Ille suos Divis mos sacrificare puellos.  
That was their manner to sacrifice their children to their Idol Gods.  The same tells Diodorus of the Carthaginians, and Justin in these words: They slew men as Sacrifices, and brought their young Children to the Altars, requesting the Gods for Reconciliation with their Blood, Lib. 18. Silius Italicus says, They were used to ask the Gods pardon with slaughter. Lactantius out of Pessennius Festus tells, That the Carthaginians thinking the Gods angry at them, that they might expiate their Crime, sacrificed two hundred Sons of the Noble Men. Also Minutius Felix mentioneth it, and Tertullian in his Apologetic, who saith, That Saturnus was therefore called a Tomb of Sons, and Plutarch in his Book of Superstition. Manethos did write, that men, and those of exquisite beauty, were of old sacrificed in Egypt; and added, that the custom was kept unto the times of Amosis, who, instead of men, substituted images of wax. And it is reported concerning Heliopolis, that it was diligently searched after there, whether they were clean that were appointed to be slain. In Cyprus also a man was sacrificed to the time of King Diphilis, who substituted the sacrificing of an Ox in the room thereof. The same was performed of old in Rhodes, Chios, Tenedos, Salamin; also in Laodicaea; and among the Dumathians of Arabia. The Persians buried men alive in the Earth. Concerning the Alban, this was reported peculiarly, That the man whom they thought to be most eminent for holiness, used to be sacrificed by them. The Jonians, as witnesseth Pausanias, sacrificed a Virgin and a Boy, that they might reconcile Diana, when she was angry. We have read the like things of the Blemyans, Massagets, Taurians, Neurians, and in the general of the Scythians; which may be sufficient for Asia and Africa: To which may be added, that the same Rite was found both in the ancient India (concerning which a long time since Mela reported the same) and in the American World by them that made those parts known to the World. And that also it is no long time since that practice was in the Ganary Islands. That we may come to Europe. Ister and Apollodorus have reported. That of old in Creta Boys were sacrificed to Saturn, and a Man to Mars in Lacedaemon. Moreover, Phylarchus reported that the same manner was among the Grecians generally, to which Plinius assents. And there are extant Examples also in the times of the Persian war. In Rome also a Grecian man and a Grecian woman, a French man and a French woman, were sacrificed. Also Jupiter of Latium was worshipped with a Humane Sacrifice: and also Diana Aricina: And Plinius tells, that such kind of Sacrifices was of old very usual in Italy and Sicily. Neither were they abrogated at Rome before the six hundred fifty and seventh year of the City. Neither have the Devotions of the Decians any other Original, by which the Ancients, as Cicero saith, in the third Book de Natura Deorum, thought the Gods were reconciled. Livius calls the Decians, the Expiations of all the anger of the Gods: and also Expiations to make Reconciliation for public Dangers. Neither must that remarkable place of Juvenal be omitted: 
Plebeiae Deciorum animae, plebeia fuerunt  
Nomina: Pro totis legionibus hi tamen, & Pro  
Omnihus auxilliis, at que omni Plebe Latinâ  
Sufficiunt Dis infernis, Terraeque parenti:  
Pluris enim Decii, quàm qui servantur abillis.  
The souls of the Decians were of the common people.  
Their names were of the common people:  
Yet they for the whole Legions, and for  
All helps, and all the people inhabiting Italy.  
Do satisfy th' infernal Gods and Mother-earth:  
For the Decians are more worthy than they that are saved by them.  In which place, first, that use of the Particle pro is evident, which we before signified to be very frequent, and as it were proper to this Argument, so that it is the same that loco alterius, in the room of another. Moreover it appears, that it was believed by the Romans, that the estimation of the Sacrifice was augmented by the dignity of him that was sacrificed. Furthermore, by comparing Authors, it is manifest that these things are of like force: That God is Reconciled by a Sacrifice; that the anger of the Gods is expiated: or that the Soul of a Man sufficeth the Gods for the Souls of others. The manner of the French men is well known by Caesar's relation, concerning which we spoke before: which Plinius saith did remain unto the Dominion of Tiberius. Cicero concerning the same; The French reconcile the Gods with Humane Sacrifices. Cicero said placare Deos, to reconcile the Gods, as also Caesar: Luctatius, Lustrare Civitatem, to purge the City by Sacrifice. The same Caesar interprets it, to render life for life. So the Thracians worshipped Zamolxis, so the Germans, Mercurius, and other Gods. Concerning whom Lucan said so: 
Et quibus immitis placatur sanguine diro Teutates.  
And they to whom unmerciful Teutates is reconciled with accursed blood.  Also Plinius reported, that in Britain Sacrifices of this kind were celebrated. Procopius writes, that the same was practised in the Island Thule unto his time, that is, unto the time of Justiniau. And Porphyrius hath recorded, that that Custom was not left off before the Empire of Adrian. Concerning the Massilians it is particularly recorded, That as oft as the Pestilence was among them, there was a poor man that used to be maintained on public Charges, whobeing adorned with Ribbons, and clothed with holy Garments, was led through the Town with Curse, that all the Evils of the City might fall upon him: and so he was sacrificed to the Immortal Gods. All which being gathered together into one, we shall see that Plinius, not without cause, cried out concerning these Sacrifices; So those things agreed with all the World, though it was at variance and unknown to itself. Thus we have discoursed by the by concerning Humane Sacrifices: in which the Heathen sinned, not only that they sacrificed unto false Gods, but also because they had no command to worship God after that manner, such as Abraham had. But that Custom of the Gentiles in Expiating the sins of Men, or Sacrificing of Beasts, brings no little light to the understanding of the nature of an Expiatory Sacrifice, and the proper names of that Argument. And so much the less can this labour be de●…i●…d, because Socinus says, That the Baptist, when he called Christ the Lamb of God, had respect unto Sacrifices in the general, by which, not only amongst the Hebrews, but also among the Heathen, sins were believed to be expiated. And it is an undoubted thing, that, seeing the Divine Writer to the Hebrews, in this very Argument of Expiatory Sacrifice, often useth the Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he used it in that sense, which the Greek Tongue had received.  
Whence it is easy to understand, what that signifies, that Christ is called a Sacrifice for sin or expiation. For whereas Socinus brings three Interpretations; the first, That the Death of Christ, by begetting Faith in us, draws us from sins, in time to come: The second. That Death itself is a certain thing antecedent to the obtaining remission of sins: The third, That it bears testimony, as it were, to the remission itself, or the Decree made concerning it. Of these three only the second belongs hereto: Not that Christ did not also those other things, and that much more effectually than Socinus thinks, but because those things belong not to Sacrifices for sins: for Socinus confesseth, That the similitude of legal Sacrifices for sin, and of the Sacrifice performed by Christ, consists in Expiation. To which may be joined the like Sacrifices of the Gentiles, considered not according to the thing, but according to the opinion of the Gentiles. But these Sacrifices did not withdraw from sin, especially by procuring the belief of any thing, neither did they bear testimony to remission performed, or certainly decreed; but, as Socinus acknowledgeth, they were a certain antecedent thing requisite unto remission: which those words of the Law show. He shall make atonement, and it shall be forgiven. Therefore in this the Comparison consists, and it is necessary that Expiation should signify the same when it is applied to legal Sacrifices, and when it is applied to Christ, because the Writer to the Hebrews brings both from the same Decree, to wit, that without shedding of Blood there should be no remission, but expiation must be made in blood, Hebr. 9.21. It hinders not that it is said, Hebr. 10.4. that it was not possible that the blood of Bulls and Goats should take away sins: for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to conscience, must be repeated from what was said before, as appears manifestly, if you compare the like places with this, chap. 9 vers. 9, and 14. The blood of beasts took away sins, that is, Temporal Guiltiness, but not Spiritual Guiltiness; as we show before. Neither can you, without a remarkable wresting, interpret that in the Apocalypse, who washed us from our sins, as if it signified, who declared that we are washed. Or 1 John 1.7. where it is said, The blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin; as if it signified, it declares us to be clean: for both the property of the Words, and the perpetual use of Scripture in this Argument, contradicts it. Socinus confesses, That Guiltiness in many places is signified by the name of Uncleanness. Hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to take away that guiltiness, or to make remission, as the Writer to the Hebrews expounds the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 9.22. Christ by himself made this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, purification, Hebr. 13. Christ purgeth the conscience from dead works, Hebr. 9.14. that is, as Socinus himself interprets, He frees the conscience from guiltiness and punishment, and the fear of punishment. Also in the Old Testament tachar hath the same sense, Psalm 51.9. But that which in these places is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to cleanse. The same upon a like account is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to sprinkle, 10.22. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, to wash in the same verse. Whereto belongs the Prophecy, Zach. 13.1. There is no reason to go from the sense of the Apostle John in these places: for though Jesus is called a faithful witness, Apoc. 1.5. yet that washing should not therefore be referred unto bearing witness: for those do not cohere immediately, the faithful witness, and he washed, but the mention of his being the firstborn from the dead comes between them, and the mention of a Kingdom, and afterwards of Love; that it may appear to a blind man, that many Offices and Benefits of Christ are joined together, to illustrate his Dignity. But in the Epistle of John it is utterly absurd to interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the declaring of purification, and not of purification itself, because a little while after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are joined. The Apostle reasons from things joined together; If you walk in light, you have cleansing, that is, remission by the blood of Christ: because sins are imputed unto none, that walk in the light. And the preaching of the Baptist, naming Christ the Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world, seeing it respects the Expiatory Sacrifices both of the Hebrews and the Gentiles, according to the acknowledgement of Socinus, suffers us not otherways to interpret to take away sins, than to take away guiltiness: For Expiatory Sacrifices did this, but did not withdraw from sinning. Neither is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the putting away of sin, Hebr. 9.26. any other thing, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that we may be cleansed, that we may have remission, as appears by vers. 22. But this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, putting away of sin was made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the sacrificing of himself, verse 26.  
But though Socinus endeavours to pluck away some places from the true sense, yet being convinced by many others, he acknowledgeth, That in the Sacrifice of Christ it is expressed, that an Expiation was made, which goes before the remission of sins, as something requisite. Yet he denies that God by that Sacrifice is moved to pardon; but he say, That a certain Faith is begotten in us, by which being brought to amendment of life, at length we obtain remission of sins. In which, first, he did little remember that which he said, That the figure should agree with the thing signified by the figure, in that in which the Comparison is made. Neither did he remember that which the Scripture shows, that those words, All things are cleansed by blood, belong the same way to Legal Sacrifices and to Christ, Hebr. 9.22. But Legal Sacrifices did not at all beget such a Faith; neither is that Exposition of the word tolerable, that to expiate is to do something that is requisite for remission. For on the contrary all these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the like, which the Apostles use, of their own nature, and by perpetual use, design not only a precedency of order, but also a certain efficacy. The Scripture also furnisheth us with other most certain Arguments for the overthrowing this Interpretation invented by Socinus. For it saith, there was need of a new Priest after the Order of Melchisedec, Hebr. 7.11. But the Levitical Priests also could preach Faith in God, yea, and confirm this preaching by their Death. Wherefore, if the Priesthood of Christ doth nothing more, (which Socinus would have) it follows there was no need of him. Moreover, this very thing, that Christ died for our sins, is believed unto salvation, 1 Cor. 15.2,3. therefore the Expiation of Christ was not chief procured for this, that it might bring a man to believe; seeing itself is among things to be believed. For that which serves only to gain credit to a thing, it is necessary that it should be different from the thing to be believed. Moreover, after the implantation of Faith, the Expiation of Christ hath effect in us. For Christ is a High Priest appointed to expiate the sins of the people, that is, of Believers, Hebr. 2.17. Therefore to expiate cannot be to bring to Faith.  
But now that we may not only beat down the false Interpretation of Socinus, but also prove the true one, which is this, That God is moved by the Death of Christ to forgive sins. Observe that place to the Hebrews, where Christ's blood of sprinkling is said to speak better than the blood of Abel. The blood of Abel cried unto God for vengeance. The blood of Christ cries for pardon. Socinus denies that God is reconciled by Expiatory Sacrifices. But the Writers above, alleged by us, testify the contrary, who use the word reconciling to express those Sacrifices. Whence also that phrase came in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, placare peccata, to reconcile sins, that is, to expiate sins by reconciling God. Socinus acknowledgeth no Satisfaction in Expiatory Sacrifices. Whereas the very word expiating, signifies no other thing but making satisfaction by punishment: and in many places the Authors cited, when they would periphrastically express Expiating, they call it to give blood for blood, life for life, soul for soul, to purchase a thing with blood, to obtain salvation by the death of another. Neither do the Hebrew words disagree from this: for Chaphar is not only to cover, but also to redeem, Exod. 21.30. Psalm 49.7. and to appease, Gen. 32.20. and thence to expiate. Hata is to suffer punishment, Gen. 31.39. whence this also began to be used for signifying Expiation. Now Expiation is attributed first to Sacrifices, as appears Hebr. 9.13. and 23. thereafter to the Priest, for the Sacrifices that he offers, as often in Leviticus: and then to God, admitting that Satisfaction. But as the word Redeeming began to be used improperly for any Deliverance, so also it began to be called Expiation for the like effect; yea, where no Satisfaction intervenes, Psal. 51.8. But Expiation is attributed unto Christ, as unto a Sacrifice, and therefore the word blood is added: but blood in Sacrifices, as before was proved, is given instead of the soul of a sinner; whence of necessity this word Expiation must be taken properly here. Add unto these things, that if that were true which Socinus would have, That Expiation was made much more by the Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven, than by Death and shedding of Blood (because those are fit to persuade us to believe than Death itself) at least, in some place of Scripture Expiation would have been attributed unto those acts: which it did not where.  
It is false that Socinus saith, That expiation or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 purification is attributed unto the manifestation of the Divine Will: neither do the places alleged prove this. For Hebr. 1.3. Christ is said to sustain all by his Word, because all things are subject to his Dominion, as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is found in the same sense, chap. 11. verse 3. and Luke 5.5. and chap. 10. verse 26, and 29. The knowledge of the Truth, and sanctification by Blood, are not put for the same, but many Benefits are joined together, that the Crime of an unthankful man may appear the more odious. There is added sometimes unto Blood the mention of a Covenant, but much more oftener of a Sacrifice, wherefore that Interpretation is to be taken, that may join them together. But this will be, if we look unto that part of the Covenant, in which Christ engaged, that, if he underwent death, it should come to pass, that their sins should be forgiven them that believed in him; and God promised the same, as appears Isai. 53.10.  
But that Christ is said to offer his blood in Heaven, that is, to show his death to his Father, and as it were to put God in remembrance thereof, which is also read to make intercession for us; these things take not away the Expiation that was completed upon the Cross. For the Expiation performed upon the Cross moves God to forgive, and acquires us a right, but under a certain Condition and Manner, in which is comprehended Intercession on Christ's part, and on our part true Faith, as hath been explained when Satisfaction was discoursed of. But Socinus manifestly contradicts the Scripture, when he denies that Expiation was made before Christ went into Heaven. For in many places Scripture attributes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, redemption, purification and sanctification, and the putting away of sin to death, and declares the same thing to be already performed: an Oblation indeed was made in Heaven, but so that Socinus should not have denied that title to the death that Christ suffered on Earth, against the manifest words of Paul, Eph. 5.2. where Christ is said to have delivered himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an offering for us. The looking upon the coherence of the words is a sufficient refutation of his Interpretation. In the same place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Offering, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sacrifice, are joined together. And all the Books of Greek and Latin Authors declare, That a Sacrifice is completed, when the thing to be sacrificed is put to death. Whence it came to pass that mactare signifies both to sacrifice and also to kill any way, the signification being extended from Sacrifices to other things. Hence Ammonius distinguisheth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Appellations of Genus and Species: for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to kill for the honour of God, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to kill upon any account. And Plutarch said That the Frenchmen and Scythians believed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that the Gods delighted in the blood of slain men, and that this was the most perfect Sacrifice. Neither did the Scripture speak otherways in this Argument, Abraham being commanded to offer his Son, Gen. 22.2. prepares to kill him, verse 10. And therefore, because he had performed the sacrificing of him, though not with his hand, yet with his mind, he is said to have offered his son, Hebr. 11.17. Sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies simply, and out of Sacrifice, to kill, as John 10.10. And Christ is called by John, the Lamb slain, Apoc. 5.6, 12. and 13.8 which Paul so expresseth, our Passover Christ is sacrificed for us, 1 Cor. 5.7. But the Passover used not to be brought into the most holy place, Hebr. 9.26. therefore the Sacrifice went before, the Appearance followed. So elsewhere in the same Epistle, Christ is said to have entered into the Celestial Sanctuary by his own blood; having obtained eternal Redemption, Hebr. 9.2. and to have sat down at the right hand of the Divine Throne, having made expiation for our sins. In which places the words of bypast time do show, that Redemption or Expiation was made before Christ entered into the Celestial Palace. Therefore though Christ is such a Highpriest that ought not to have remained on earth, as the Levitical Priests, Hebr. 8.14. but having entered into Heaven, he ought to be higher than the Heaven, Hebr. 4.14. and 7.26. as whose Priesthood ought to be eternal, and intransitory, 7.24. yet he was a true Priest, and a true Sacrifice at that very time, when he delivered himself on Earth up to Death. And therefore he is said, to have come into the world, Hebr. 10.5. (that is, into the earth, as the Scripture if self interprets, John 18. 37. 1 Tim. 1.15.) that he might do the will of God, vers. 7, and 9 that he might offer his own body, being prepared by God, that is, sacrificed, vers. 6. to God, vers. 10. for sins, vers. 12. In which place it must be also observed, that we are said to be sacrificed by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oblation once: whereas Christ intercedes as oft as there is need for us: So that here not killing, but intercession, must be understood.  
Therefore the Oblation of Christ, as of certain Legal Sacrifices, is twofold. The first of killing, the other of showing: the former Oblation of Christ was performed on Earth, the later in Heaven: but that former was not a preparation of a Sacrifice, but a Sacrifice: the later is not so much a Sacrifice as a Commemoration of a Sacrifice that was performed. Wherefore seeing Appearance and Intercession are not properly Sacerdotal Acts, but as they depend upon the virtue of the Sacrifice that was made, he that takes away that Sacrifice allows not unto Christ a true Priesthood, against the manifest Authority of Scripture, which assigns unto Christ a Pontifical Dignity, distinct from a Prophetical and Royal: not figuratively so called, but true; for his Priesthood is opposed to the Levitical Priesthood, which was a true Priesthood, as a more perfect Species of the same Genus to another less perfect: neither could it be rightly inferred, that it was necessary that Christ should have what he might offer, Hebr. 8.3. but from the truth of that Priesthood unto which he was appointed, vers. 3. But it is no wonder, if they who have taken away from Christ his Natural Glory, that is, the Divinity of his true Name, if they also diminish his Offices, and are unwilling to acknowledge his chief Benefits. To thee, O Lord Jesus, as the true God, as the true Redeemer, as the true Priest as the true Sacrifice for sins, together with the Father and the Spirit, one God with thee, be Honour and Glory.   
FINIS.  

THE TESTIMONIES OF THE Ancients.  
THE TESTIMONIES OF THE ANCIENTS.  
IReneus lib. 5. cap. 1. For he would not really have had Flesh and Blood, by which he redeemed us, except he had restored the ancient Creation of Adam in himself.  
Which place Theodoretus citys out of Ireneus in the Greek Language, Dialog. 2. cap. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For he had not really had Flesh and Blood, by which he redeemed us.  
Tertullianus against the Jews, cap. 13. It behoved Christ to be a Sacrifice for all Nations, who was led to the slaughter as a Sheep, and as a Lamb is dumb before the shearer, so he opened not his mouth.  
Origen on Leviticus, homil. 3. almost at the beginning. If any man remember well those things that have been said, he may say to us, that we asserted that the Sacrifice, which we said the Highpriest offered for sin, is a Type of Christ, and it will not seem agreeable to the true Christ, who knows not sin, that he should be said to have offered Sacrifice for sin, though the thing is acted by a Mystery: and the same is put for the Priest, and also for the Sacrifice. See then if we may also solve this Objection after this manner: That Christ indeed did no sin, yet he was made sin for us, whilst he that was in the form of God, condescends to be in the form of a Servant, whilst he, that is immortal, dies, and he that is impassable, suffers, and he that is invisible, is seen: and because either Death, or all other Frailty of the Flesh, was brought upon us men by the condition of sin, he himself also, who was made after the likeness of men, and found in fashion as a man, undoubtedly he himself for sin, which he undertook, because he carried our sins, did offer the Calf without blemish, that is, his immaculate Flesh a Sacrifice to God.  
Origen homil. 4. on Numbers. If sin had not been, it would not have been necessary that the Son of God should become a Lamb; neither had it been needful that he, being placed in the flesh, should be slain, but that, which was in the beginning, would have remained, God the Word. But because sin entered into this World, and the necessity of sin requires a Propitiation, and Propitiation is not made but by Sacrifice, it was necessary that a Sacrifice for sin should be provided.  
On Matthew, cap. 16. Tract. 11. A man cannot give any exchange for his soul, but God gave an exchange for the souls of all men, the precious blood of his own Son. For we are not bought with corruptible silver or gold, but with the precious Blood of the Lamb without blemish.  
On the Epistle to the Romans, lib. 2. cap. 2. Ye confess that it is undoubtedly true, which is written in the Epistle of Peter: because we are redeemed no with the corruptible price of silver and gold, but with the precious blood of the only begotten: If then we are bought with a price, as Paul also jointly bears witness, we are without doubt bought from some person, whose Servants we were, who also demanded the price he would have, that he might send from under his power them that he held, but the Devil held us, to whom we were in bondage by our sins: Therefore he required our price, the blood of Christ. But until the Blood of Jesus was given, which was so precious, that it was sufficient alone, for the Redemption of all men, it was necessary that those, who were instructed in the Law, every one for himself should give his own Blood, as it were in imitation of the future Redemption: and therefore we, for whom the price of the blood of Christ was fulfilled, have no need to offer for ourselves a price that is the blood of Circumcision.  
Cyprian Epist. 8, to Clem. and the People. He prayed for us, though he was not a sinner himself, but bore our sins. The same Epist. 63. to Cecilius parag. 9 Christ carried us all, who also carried our sins.  
The same in his Book to Demetrianus, parag. 22. Christ imparts this Grace, he gives this gift of his mercy, by subduing Death with the Triumph of the Cross, by redeeming the Believer with the price of his Blood, by reconciling man to God the Father, by enlivening mortal man with the Celestial Regeneration.  
The same, or rather another Writer of the Book of the Cardinal Works of Christ to Cornelius the Pope, Serm. 7. which is concerning the manner of Circumcision: that one Oblation of our Redeemer was of so great Dignity, that it was sufficient alone to take away the sins of the World, who with so great Authority went into the holy place with his own Blood, that afterwards no request of Suppliants needed the Blood of any other.  
The same Serm. 16. which is concerning the Ascension of Christ: Who for our sakes having been sold for thirty pieces of silver, would have it to be understood, how great an unequality there was in the price that was given for him, and in that, which he himself gave for the World: Whereas, he being bought and sold for a little silver, redeemed us at so great a price: so that it cannot be a doubtful case, that the greatness of the price exceeded the bargain. Neither could the damage, that verily just damnation deserved, be equallized to the Obedience of Christ, which proceeded unto Death itself, and over and above paid what it owed not.  
Lactantius concerning the Benefits of Christ. Whosoever thou art that art present, and comes within the threshold of the middle Temple, look on me, who being guiltless, suffered for thy sin, etc.  
And presently: For thee, and for thy life, I entered the Virgin's womb, was made Man, and suffered a dreadful Death, etc.  
Eusebius Coesariensis, lib. 10. of the Demonstration of the Gospel. For it behoved the Lamb of God, that was taken up by the great Highpriest, to be offered a Sacrifice to God for the other Lambs of the same kind, and for all the Flock of Mankind. For because by man came Death, by man also came the Resurrection of the Dead.  
The same lib. 10. cap. 1. And as, when one Member suffers, all the other Members suffer with it: so also, when many Members suffered and sinned, he also suffered according to the ways of sympathy. For, forasmuch as it pleased God, being the Word, to take the form of a Servant, and to be joined to the common Tabernacle of us all, he takes upon himself the pain of the suffering Members, and makes our Diseases his own, and suffers grief and pain for us all, according to the Laws of Love to Mankind. And the Lamb of God having not only performed these things, but having been punished for us, and having endured the sufferings that he himself did not deserve, but we, for the sake of the Multitude of them that trespassed, he became to us the Author of the forgiveness of sins, having undertaken Death for us, and translated unto himself, the stripes and reproaches and shame that was due to us, and drawn upon himself the Curse that was due to us, becoming a Curse for us; and what other thing was this but the giving life for life? Therefore the Oracle saith in our person, we were healed by his stripes, and the Lord delivered himself for our sins.  
Eusebius concerning the Preparation of the Gospel, lib. 1. cap. 10. And God had respect to Abel and his Gifts, but unto Cain and his Sacrifice he had no respect. Hence you may understand, that he that offered Beasts was more acceptable than he that offered a Sacrifice of the Fruits of the Earth. And Noah immediately offered upon the Altar Burnt-offerings of all clean Beasts, and of all clean Fowl, and the Lord smelled a smell of sweet savour: But Abraham also is recorded to have sacrificed, so that by testimony of sacred Scripture, those that were lovers of God of old, esteemed the Sacrifice of Beasts the chiefest of all. But I suppose the reason of this thing was not accidental, or found out by man's wit, but taught by the Divine Wisdom; for seeing they saw, that they who in their manners were holy, and conversant with God, and enlightened in their souls by the Divine Spirit, and that they needed to perform great service for the cleansing away of the sins of Mortals, they supposed that the price of their Salvation was due to him that is Prince both of life and soul. Moreover, having nothing better, nor more precious to sacrifice than their soul, instead thereof they offered a Sacrifice of brute Beasts, bringing them in the room of their own life, thinking that they sinned not, nor offended in this thing, because they were taught that the soul of unreasonable Creatures was not equal to the reasonable and intellective faculty of Men, and having been taught that their life is no other thing but their blood, and the lively power in the blood; which they also presented, offering it as a life for a life unto God. And Moses also evidently declares this same thing, the life of all flesh is the blood thereof, and I have given you the blood upon the Altar to make atonement for your sins: for their blood shall make atonement for the life: Therefore I have commanded the Children of Israel, that no soul of you should eat blood: therefore consider diligently of these things, how it is said, I gave you blood upon the Altar to make Atonement for your souls. For blood shall make atonement for the soul: For he doth manifestly say, that the blood of slain Beasts makes atonement for the soul of man. And the Law concerning Sacrifices, gives him that looks into it attentively to understand this same thing. Therefore he commands every man that sacrificeth to lay his hands upon the Head of the thing sacrificed, and to bring the Beast that is to die to the Priest, as offering the Sacrifice instead of his own life. Therefore he says of every one, He shall present it before the Lord, and shall put his hands upon the Head of the Offering; and so it was observed in every Sacrifice, no Sacrifice being otherways offered. For which things it is said, that the Beasts were brought, that their lives might be offered for theirs.  
Antonius the Hermit, Epist. 2. in which also the Father of Creatures being moved in his Bowels for our wound, which could not be heeled, but by his goodness only, sent his only Begotten to us, that by our Bondage he might take the form of Bondage, and deliver himself up for our sins. And our very sins humbled him; but by his stripes we all were healed.  
Macarius' Bishop of Jerusalem, Lib. 2. Act. Concil. Nicen. But he came a Saviour of all men, and undertook for our sake in his own flesh, the punishments that were due to our sins.  
Athanasius concerning the Incarnation of the Word of God. And because it was necessary that that which was due from all should at length be restored, for it was due that all men should die, as I said before, for which chief he came. For this cause, after his manifesting of his Divinity by his Works, it remained, that he should offer a Sacrifice for all, having given the Temple of his own Body unto Death for all men, that he might make all men unblameable and free from the ancient Transgression, and might declare himself also to be more powerful than death, having showed his own body uncorruptible as a First-fruits of the Resurrection of all.  
And presently: For there was need of Death, and there was need that Death should be for all; that that which was due from all might be performed: whence as I said before, the Word, because it was impossible that he should die (for he was Immortal) took upon himself a Body that could die, that he might offer it, as being his own, instead of all men. And that he suffering for all men by entering thereinto, he might destroy him that had the power of Death, that is, the Devil; and might deliver those that through fear of Death were subject to Bondage. The Saviour of all men having died for us, we that believe in Christ, do not now die the death as of old, according to the threatening of the Law.  
The same in the same place. And by such a manner of death Salvation came to all men, and all the Creation was redeemed: this is the life of all. And as a Sheep, he gave his Body unto Death instead of all men, for their Salvation.  
The same upon the Passion and Cross of Christ. But beholding the visibleness of the wickedness, and that the Mortal Generation was not able to stand against Death, nor able to suffer the punishment of their sins, for the excessive greatness of the evil exceeded all punishment, and seeing the goodness of his Father, seeing also his own fitness and power. For Christ is the power of God, and the wisdom of God, he was moved with love to Mankind, and pitying our weakness, he clothed himself therewith, for he himself, as saith the Prophet, took our Infirmities, and carried our Diseases, and pitying our Mortality, clothed himself therewith; for Paul saith, He humbled himself unto death, and that the death of the Cross; and seeing the impossibility of our bearing the punishment, took it upon himself: For Christ became a Curse for us, and so being compassed about, and clothed with Humane Nature by himself, brought us to the Father, that he himself suffering, may make man's suffering to be without damage, and may exchange small things for great.  
Hilarius Pictaviensis on cap. 14. Matth. in the Hymn on the Epiphany: 
Jesus hath forth shined,  
The gracious Redeemer of all Mankind.  
Blessed John with fear doth shiver,  
To dip him in the River,  
Whose Blood is able to purge out  
The sins of all the world throughout.   
Optatus Milevitanus concerning the Schism of the Donatists against Parmenianus, lib. 3. When ye say, redeem your souls: whence bought ye them, that ye may sell them? Who is that Angel, who makes a fair of souls, which the Devil possessed before his coming? Christ the Saviour redeemed these with his Blood, according as the Apostle said, Ye are bought with a price; for it is evident, that all men were redeemed by the Blood of Christ.  
Victor Antiochenus on the fifteenth Chapter of Mark. And wherefore, sayest thou, was the Lord and Maker of all things made Man for our sakes, and suffered so much reproach, and so great punishments? He was made like unto us, and took our Miseries and our Crosses upon himself, that he might raise up our Nature, that was fallen down by sin, and might again restore it unto its ancient degree of Dignity. Therefore the Advantages that have redounded unto us by his Torments, are very many; for he paid our Debts for us, he bore our sins, he both lamented and sighed for our sake.  
Cyrillus of Jerusalem, Catechis. 13. But he set free all that were kept in Bondage under sin, and redeemed the whole World of Mankind. And you need not wonder that the whole World was redeemed, for he was not a mere man, but the only begotten Son of God who died for them. And verily the sin of one man Adam was effectual to bring death upon the World. But if Death reigned over the World by the sin of one man, how much more shall life reign by the Righteousness of one man? And if then they were thrown out of Paradise for the Tree of Food, verily now by the Tree of Jesus Believers shall more easily enter into Paradise▪ If the first man that was form of the Earth, brought Death upon the World; certainly it must needs be, that he that form him of the Earth, being Life himself, should bring Eternal Life. If Phinehas, being zealous against the Evil-doer, caused the Anger of God to cease, doth not Jesus, who slew not another, but delivered up himself, the Price of our Redemption, take away the Anger of God that was provoked against men?  
Basilius Homil. on Psalm 48. One thing was found that was worthy of all together, which was given for the price of the Redemption of our Souls, the holy and precious Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.  
Gregor. Nazianz. in the two and fortieth Oration, which is the second on the Paschal Lamb. That great thing, and unsacrificeable (that I may so speak) in respect of the first Nature, was mingled with Legal Sacrifices, and not for a small part of the World, nor for a little time, but for all the World, and it eternised the Purification.  
The same in the same place. A few drops of Blood renew the Creation of the whole World, and they have united and gathered all men into one Body.  
And in the same Oration. It is therefore requisite to search into the Matter and Doctrine, which hath been neglected by many, but by me hath been very diligently searched after. For unto whom was that great and much celebrated Blood of God, and the Highpriest, and the Sacrifice poured forth, and upon what account? for we were kept in Bondange by that wicked one under sin, and received the pleasure of Wickedness. But if the price of Redemption belongs to no other but the Possessor, I ask to whom was this offered, and for what cause? If you say that it was offered to that wicked one; fie upon that Blasphemy! whereas this thing proceeds from God only. Yea, if it were so, a Robber would receive God for a price of Redemption, and thereby a Reward over and above of his Tyranny, for which it was just to spare us. But if it was offered to the Father, first, how? for we were not kept in Bondage by him. But what a saying is that, that the Blood of the only begotten delights the Father, who did not accept of Isaac offered by his Father? but he exchanged the Sacrifice, delivering a Beast instead of the reasonable Sacrifice. Or it is evident that the Father receiveth, not having asked, nor having been requested, but for the dispensation, and because of the necessity that man should be sanctified by the Humane Nature of God, that he might deliver us, having laid hold on the Tyrant by force, and might bring us to himself by his Son, being Mediator, and dispensing this for the honour of the Father.  
Gregory Nyssene to Olympius the Monk, concerning the Form of a perfect Name. But we learn that Christ is the price of Redemption, having given himself a price for us. This we are taught by such a saying, that we should learn, how he having paid a certain price for every man's soul, made immortality the peculiar possession of them that were by him redeemed from Death unto Life.  
Ambrose lib. de Tobia, cap. 10. Behold, the Prince of this world cometh, and findeth nothing of his own in me; he owed nothing, but he paid for all; as he himself bears witness, saying, Then I restored that which I took not away.  
The same in his Book concerning Joseph the Patriarch. Joseph was sold in Egypt, because Christ was to come to them, to whom it was said, Ye were sold for your sins. And therefore he redeemed them, whom their own sins had sold. But Christ was sold by undertaking the Condition, not the Fault. And he owes no price for sin, because he himself did no sin. Therefore he drew on debt by our price, not his own: he took away the Handwriting, removed the Usurer, freed the Debtor; he alone paid that which was due from all.  
Ambrose concerning Esau, cap. 7. God therefore took flesh upon him, that he might abolish the Curse of sinful flesh: and was made a Curse for us, that the Blessing might swallow up the Curse, the Integrity the Sin, the Indulgence the Condemnation, and Life Death. For he undertook Death, that the Sentence might be fulfilled; and that the Judgement due to sinful Flesh by the Curse, might be satisfied unto the Death. Therefore nothing was done against the Sentence of God, because the Condition of the Divine Sentence was fulfilled; for the Curse was unto Death, and after Death came Grace.  
The same Lib. 9 Epist. 7. The Lord Jesus, when he came, forgave all men the sin, which no man could avoid, and blotted out our Handwriting by the shedding of his own Blood: that is, as he saith, Sin abounded by the Law, but Grace superabounded by Jesus: because after all the World was subdued, the took away the sin of all the world.  
Lib. 1. Epist. 11. See whether that is the saving Sacrifice, which God the Word offered in himself, and sacrificed in his own Body.  
And a little after: But that he pours out the Blood at the Altar, thereby may be understood the cleansing of the World, the remission of all sins. For he pours out that Blood at the Altar as a Sacrifice, to take away the sins of many. For the Lamb is a Sacrifice, but not a Lamb of an unreasonable Nature, but of a Divine Power. Concerning whom it was said, Behold, the Lamb of God, behold him that taketh away the sins of the world; for he hath not only with his Blood cleansed the sins of all, but also endued them with a Divine Power.  
The same upon Luke, lib. 7. cap. 12. The Adversary esteemed us at a base rate, as Captive-slaves but the Lord hath redeemed us by a great price, as being beautiful Bondslaves, which he made after his own Image and Likeness, who is a fit Judge of his own handiwork, as the Apostle said, For ye are bought with a price; and well it may be called great, which is not prized by Money, but by Blood; because Chrst died for us, who delivered us by his precious Blood, etc. And well it may be called precious, because it is the Blood of an unspotted Body; because it is the Blood of the Son of God, who hath not only redeemed us from the Curse of the Law, but also from the perpetual death of Impiety.  
The same Lib. 10. upon Luke, Chap. 22. I have sinned, because I have betrayed innocent Blood, the price of Blood is the price of the Lord's Passion. Therefore the World is bought by Christ with the price of Blood.  
Lib. 3. concerning Virginity, near the end. We were put in pledge to an evil Creditor by sins: we drew on the Handwriting of the Fault, we owed the price of Blood. The Lord Jesus came, he offered his own Blood for us.  
And presently: Therefore do thou also behave thyself worthy of such a price, lest Christ come, who hath cleansed thee, who hath redeemed thee, and if he find thee in sin, he say unto thee, What profit hadst thou by my blood? What hath it profitted thee, that I went down into Corruption?  
Lib. 1. of the Apology of David, cap. 13. The Apostle says excellently, Because the Lord Jesus hath forgiven our sins, blotting out the Handwriting of the Decree, which was against us; and he hath taken it away, saith he, having fixed it to the Cross. He blotted out the Ink of Eve with his own Blood, he blotted out the Obligation of the hurtful Inheritance.  
On the Epistle to the Hebrews, cap. 9 But all the bodily cleansing of the Old Testament belonged to him: but now there is a Spiritual cleansing of the Blood of Christ. Therefore he saith, This is the blood of the New Testament for the remission of sins. In those there was an outside sprinkling; and again the sprinkled person was rinsed: for the People did not always walk besprinkled with blood. But it is not so in the Soul; but the Blood is mingled with its Essence, making that clean Fountain, and bringing forth unspeakable beauty. For this cause was the kill of the Lamb, and its blood was sprinkled on the Door-posts of them that were to be delivered. For this cause also we read of all the Sacrifices of the Old Testament, which were appointed to typify this Sacrifice; by which comes the true remission of sins, and the cleansing of the Soul for ever.  
The same, or rather the Writer of the Commentary on the Epistles of Paul, attributed to Ambrose, on 1 Cor. cap. 6. Because we are bought with a dear price, we should serve the Lord more diligently, lest being offended, he should deliver us back to that death, from which he redeemed us: For he bought us with a very dear price, that he might give his blood for us.  
The same on the same Ep. c. 11. We take the mystical Cup of the blood, for the preservation of our body and soul, because the blood of the Lord redeemed our blood, that is, made the whole man safe. For the flesh of the Saviour was for the salvation of our body, and the blood was shed for our souls.  
The same on the second Epistle to the Corinthians, cap. 5. Because he was offered for sins, he is not without cause said to be made sin, because the Sacrifice in the Law, which was offered for sins, was called sin, that we might be the righteousness of God in him, who knew no sin; as Isaiah says, Who did no sin, neither was guile sound in his mouth. He was slain, as if he had been a sinner, that sinners might be justified before God in Christ.  
Epiphanius Hoeres. 55. First he offered himself, that he might abolish the Sacrifice of the Old Testament, having offered a more perfect living Sacrifice for all the world, himself being the Temple, himself the Sacrifice, himself the Priest, himself the Altar, himself God, himself Man, himself a King, himself an Highpriest, himself a Sheep, himself a Lamb, becoming all in all for our sake, that he might become life to us in all respects, and might procure the unchangeable establishment of his Priesthood.  
Andraeas' Caesariensis on Apoc. cap. 1. Honour, saith he, Glory and Dominion becometh him, who being inflamed with burning love, by his own Death deliverec us from the bonds of Death, and by the pouring forth of his Life-giving blood and water, washed us from the filth of sin, and chose us for a Royal Priesthood.  
Prudentius on Roman. Mart. This is the Cross, the Salvation of us all, saith Romanus, this is man's redemption.  
Chrysostomus in his Preface on the Comment. on Isaiah. How great is the Clemency of God towards us? He spared not a Son, that he might spare a Servant: He delivered up his only Begotten, that he might redeem Servants that were altogether unthankful; he paid the blood of his own Son for their price.  
Hieronymus lib. 1. against the Pelagians. And, saith he, when he would enter in, let him offer a Calf for sin, and a Ram for a Burnt-Sacrifice; and let him take two Goats for the People, let him offer one of them for his own sin, and one for the sin of the People, and a Ram for a Burnt-Sacrifice. One of the two Goats takes all the sins of the People upon him, for a Type of the Lord our Saviour, and carries them away into the Wilderness; and so God is reconciled to all the Multitude.  
The same on Isaiah. He was despised, and not regarded, when he was hanged on the Cross, and being made a Curse for us, bore our sins, and spoke to the Father, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?  
Augustine concerning the Trinity, lib. 13. cap. 14. What is the righteousness where-by the Devil was overcome? What other, but the righteousness of Jesus Christ; and how was he overcome? because when he found nothing in him worthy of Death, yet he killed him. And verily it is just that the Debtors whom he held, should be sent away free, believing in him, whom he slew without any Debt. For so was that innocent blood shed for the remission of our sins.  
And presently: He goes on afterwards to his Passion, that he might pay that, which he owed not, for us the Debtors.  
And in the next Chapter. Then that blood, because it was the blood of him that had no sin at all, was shed for the remission of our sins, that, because the Devil kept those deservedly in bondage, whom being guilty of sin, he bond over to a condition of Death, he might justly set these free by him, whom being guilty of no sin, he punished with Death without his deserving. The strong man was overcome by this righteousness, and tied with this bond, that his Goods might be taken away, that whilst they were in his possession, were together with him and his Angels, Vessels of Wrath, and that they might be turned into Vessels of Mercy.  
The same on John, Tract. 41. We are not reconciled, but by the taking away of sin, which is the Medium of Separation: but the Mediator is the Reconciler. Therefore that the Wall of Separation may be taken away, the Mediator comes, and the Priest himself is made a Sacrifice.  
Lib. 7. de Civ. Dei. cap. 31. God sent his Word unto us, who is his only Son, by whose Birth and Sufferings for us in the Flesh that he took, we might know how much God prized man, and might be cleansed by that one Sacrifice from all our sins, and Love being spread abroad in our hearts by his Spirit, having overcome all Difficulties, we might come to everlasting rest.  
In his Declaration on Psalm 95. Men were held captive under the Devil, and served Devils; but they were redeemed from Captivity. For they could sell themselves, but they could not redeem themselves. The Redeemer came, and gave the price, shed his blood, and bought the world. Ask ye what he bought? See what he gave, and find what he bought. The blood is the price. What is of so great worth? What? but the whole world. What, but all Nations? They are very unthankful to their own price, or they are very proud, who say, that either it was so small a price that it purchased only Africans; or that they themselves were so great, that it was given for them only. Therefore they should not insult, nor be puffed up with pride, he gave for the whole as much as he gave. He knows what he bought, because he knows for how much he bought it, and how much he gave for it.  
On Psalm 129. Our Priest received from us, what he might offer for us; for he received flesh from us: In the flesh he was made an Expiation, he was made a whole Burnt-Offering, he was made a Sacrifice.  
Lib. 4. against the two Epistles of the Pelagians. But how say the Pelagians, that Death only passed unto us by Adam? For if we therefore die because he died, and he died because he sinned, they say the punishment passeth unto us without the Fault, and that the innocent Infants are punished by an unjust Judgement in being liable to Death, without the merits of Death. Which the Catholic Faith acknowledgeth of one only Mediator between God and Men, the man Christ Jesus, who condescended to undergo Death for us, that is, the punishment of sin without sin. For as he only was made the Son of Man, that through him we might be made the Sons of God. So he undertook punishment for us without evil merits, that we through him might obtain grace without good merits. Because, as there was not any good due to us, so neither was any evil due to him.  
Lib. 14. against Faustus the Manich, cap. 4. Christ undertook our punishment without guilt, that thereby he might take away our guilt, and also put an end to our punishment.  
The same in the eight Sermon concerning Time. There is a twofold cause chief, why the Son of God became the Son of Man. One is, that as Man, through suffering all things for us, he might set us free from the bonds of Sins; for so the Prophet Isaiah had foretold: he bore our sins; etc. But the other cause of the Lord's Passion is, that he might stir us up, whom he redeemed from sins and wickedness by his own blood, unto the study of Piety, not only by the help of Doctrine and Grace, but also by his own Example.  
De Temp. Serm. 51. Death could not be overcome but by Death; therefore Christ suffered Death, that an unjust Death might overcome just Death, and might deliver them that were justly condemned, whilst he was unjustly slain for them.  
And Serm. 141. Our Lord Jesus Christ by partaking with us of the punishment, without the sin, hath taken away both the sin and the punishment.  
De Serm. Dom. on Luke 37. It is thy fault that thou art unjust, but it is thy punishment that thou art mortal. He, that he might be thy Neighbour, he undertook thy punishment, but he took not upon him thy sin, or if he took it upon him, he took it upon him to abolish it, not to do it. And presently after, by taking upon him the punishment, and not taking upon him the sin, he abolished both the sin and the punishment.  
Cyrillus on Leviticus, lib. 10. Then all the People cried that he should let Barrabbas go free, but delier up Jesus to Death. Behold, thou hast the Goat that was sent away alive into the Wilderness, carrying with him the sins of the People, crying and saying, Crucify, Crucify. He than is the Goat was sent alive into the Wilderness, and he is the Goat that was offered to the Lord for a Sacrifice, to make Atonement for sins, and he made a true Propitiation for the People that believe in him.  
The same against Julian lib. 9 See therefore the Sacrament, and how it is well delineated by the two Goats. For the Goat was slain for the sins of the Priest and People, according to that which was commanded in the Law. And because Christ was sacrificed for our sins, he is compared to a Goat. For so saith the Prophet Isaiah, We all went astray like sheep, every man wandered in his own way, and God delivered him up for our sins. For two Goats are taken, not that there are two Christ's, that is, two Sons, as some supposed. But rather, because it was requisite that he should be seen, who was also to be slain for us, dying indeed according to the flesh, but living according to the spirit.  
The same on John lib. 2. cap. 1. One Lamb is slain for all, that he may offer all kind of men to God. One for all, that he may gain all, and that all may no longer live to themselves, but to Christ, that died for all, and that risen again for all: For, because we were in sin, and were therefore a due debt to Death and Destruction the Father gave his Son for our Reddemption. He gave one for all, both because all are in him, and he is better than all.  
The same in the Homil. that was said at Ephesus against Nestorius. Verily (these wicked Heretics) are the Sons of Perdition and the wicked Seed, which deny the Lord, that bought them: for we are bought with a price, not corruptible, as Gold and Silver, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish and spot. But how could the blood of a common man like us, have been the Redemption of the World?  
In the Exegesis to Valerianus concerning the Incarnation of the Word, which is extant Concil. Eph. 6. c. 17. He who was without a Body, as God, confesseth that he hath a Body prepared for him, that being made an oblation for us, he might heal us all by his stripes, according to the saying of the Prophet. But how could one dying for all pay a sufficient price for all, if we say that was the suffering of any mere man? But if the Word having suffered according to the Flesh, translated unto himself the Sufferings of his own Flesh, as if they were his own Sufferings, and claimed them to himself, than indeed we do very well affirm that the Death of one, according to the Flesh, was of greater value than the life of all men.  
Theodoretus quaest. 9 on Numb. For the Lord Christ only, as Man, is unblameable; and the Prophet Isaiah foreseeing this, cries out, Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth. For this cause also he took upon him the sins of others, having none of his own; for he (saith he) doth bear our sins, and is in anguish for our sakes. And the great John: Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the World. For this cause he is free among the dead, as having suffered Death unjustly.  
The same Serm. 10. concerning Providence, he brings in the Lord speaking thus: For I have paid the Debt for that Generation; for not owing Death, I suffered Death, and being made subject to Death, I undertook Death, and though being unblameable, I was reckoned among them that were worthy of blame; and being free from Debts, was reckoned amongst the Debtors. I therefore paid the Debt of nature; and having suffered an unjust Death, I abolish the just Death: and I having been unjustly detained, do free them that were justly detained from their bondage. Behold the Nature's Bill of Indictment taken away, O bitter Death, behold it nailed to the Cross! Behold it being a Bill of wickedness not received! for the eyes of this very body have paid for the eyes that beheld wickedly; the ears of this body, for the ears that received pollution; this tongue, likeways, these hands, and the other parts, for those Members that committed any manner of sin. But the Debt being paid, it is requisite, that they who were kept in bondage upon this account, should be freed from their bondage, and receive their former liberty, and return to the Country of their Father.  
Proclus the Constantinopolitan Homil concerning the Nativity of Christ. The nature of man was deeply indebted through sins, and was in distress about the Debt: for through Adam all were made guilty of sin; the Devil kept us in slavery.  
The first Inventor of our Miseries stood up arguing the Debt upon us, and demanded of us Justice. Therefore it was necessary that one of these two things should be: that either Death should be brought upon all according to the Condemnation, because all have sinned, or that such a price should be given in recompense, that contained all Righteousness that was required. Now then Man could not save us, for he was liable to the Debt of Sin. An Angel could not redeem the Human Nature, for the was not capable to pay such a price of Redemption. Therefore it remained that the sinless God ought to die for them that had sinned; for this only way remained of deliverance from that Evil. What then? he that brought every Nature out of nothing into being, who was not in distress to find out a way of Deliverance, he found out for them that were Condemned, a most sure Life, and a very honourable way of abolishing Death, and he is born a Man of the Virgin, after such a manner as he himself knows; for speech cannot declare the wonderfulness thereof; and he died in what he became, and purchased Redemption by what he was, according to the saying of Paul, In whom we have Redemption by his Blood, the remission of sins. O glorious works! he purchased Immortality for others, for he himself was Immortal.  
Leo concerning the Passion, Serm. 12. What hope can they have in the safeguard of this Sacrament, who deny the truth of Human Substance in the Body of our Saviour? Let them tell by what Sacrifice they are reconciled, by what Blood they are redeemed, who is he that gave himself for us an Oblation and Sacrifice for a savour of sweet smell? Or what Sacrifice was ever more holy than that which the true Highpriest laid upon the Altar of the Cross? For though the Death of many Saints was precious in the sight of God, yet the kill of no other Innocent person was the Propitiation of the World. The Just receive Crowns, but did not give them; and from the Courage of the Faithful have arisen Examples of Patience, but not Gifts of Righteousness; for there were singular Debts in each one of them; neither did any of them pay another man's Debt by his Death; whereas it was only our Lord Jesus Christ that was found among the Sons of Men, in whom all were crucified, all died, all were buried, and also all were raised again.  
Claudianus Mamertus concerning the State of the Soul, lib. 2. Pictavus Hilarius in many of his high Disputations, being somewhat different in his Opinion, asserted these two things contrary to truth; one of of which was this, That he said nothing was created Incorporeal; the other was this, That he said Christ suffered no pain in his Passion, whose Passion, if it had not been true, our Redemption also could not have been true.  
Anastasius Sinaita Bishop of Antiochia, concerning the Right Rules of the Catholic Faith. lib. 4. concerning the Passion, and impassable Deity of Christ. His Blood was shed, which was sufficient to redeem many. Perhaps it would be better to say, it was sufficient to redeem all, for all are also many.  
Procopius of Gaza on the 24th of Exod. Seeing Christ was by nature joined to the Father, if we are made partakers of him by the Spirit, we will also by him be united to the Father, coming into the Society of the Divine Nature. Neither did they go up into the Mountain before they were crucified with the Blood of Christ, who gave himself a price of Redemption for us, offering his own Flesh as an unblameable Sacrifice to God and the Father.  
Gregor. M. lib. 3. Moral. cap. 13. Another that was created for Paradise would proudly take upon him the similitude of Divine Power: Nevertheless the Mediator paid for the fault of this Pride, being himself without fault. Hence it is that a certain wise man said to the Father, because thou art just, thou desposest all things justly; also thou condemnest him that ought not to be punished. But it must be considered how he can be just, and dispose all things justly, if he condemns him that ought not to be punished. For our Mediator, ought not to have been punished for himself, because he had no contagion of sin. But if he had not undertaken an undue Death, he had never delivered us from a due Death. Therefore the Father because he is just, in punishing the just one, he disposeth all things justly. For hereby he justifies all, in that he condemns him that is without sin for sinners.  
Isychius on Levicic. cap. 16. The Law made the Children of Israel liable to the Curse and to Death, so that they had therefore a necessity of Expiation, and the Sacrifice of the only begotten is slain for them principally; but he is Sacrificed for all men; so that Caiphas said, It behoveth that one man should die for the People, and not the whole Nation perish. And the Evangelist John confirming, and also correcting what was said, added, But this he said not of himself, but being Highpriest that year, he prophesied that Christ was to die for that Nation; and not for that Nation only, but that he should gather together into one the Sons of God that are scattered, to wit, the Gentiles. Jesus was slain for Israel, and he offered him for all Mankind, to be an Expiation of our Uncleanness.  
Antiochus in Exomologess. Thy Word was discoloured with no sprinkling of sin at all, whom thou sentest through the bowels of thy Mercy, that he might call back his own handiwork into the way, being made flesh, he suffered himself for our sake to be crucified, and abolished the Handwriting that was against us, being made a Propitiation for our sins.  
Sophronius of Jerusalem Epist. to Sergius Patriarch of Constantinople. Christ condescended to die for men, and for their redemption shed his Divine Blood, and laid down his Soul, which was a Gift more Divine than all Dignity.  
Elias Cretenses. Christ was called Redemption, because he set us at liberty that were sold under sin, and gave himself as a price of Redemption for the Expiation of the whole World.  
Nicephorus of Constantinople Epist. to Leo 3. which is extant in Baronius Tom. 9 Annal. p. 587. Edit. Mor. 2. I believe he was crucified, not in that Substance, wherein he shines with the Father, though it is said, the Lord of Glory was crucified, but in our Earthly Nature, in which he took upon him our Earthly Mass, and was made a Curse for us, that he might make us partakers of the Blessing that comes from him, and he was content to suffer the Death of Malefactors according to the flesh, that by suffering Death he might condemn the sting of Death in his flesh, and might destroy him that had the Power of Death, that is, the Devil.  
Mark the Hermit in his Book concerning them that think they are justified by Works. Christ is Lord according to his Essence, and Lord also according to Dispensation: Because he made them that were not; and hath redeemed them that died to sin, by his own Blood, and gave Grace to them that thus believed.  
Theodorus Abucara Bishop of the Carians, Disp 15. cap. 5. God in his just Judgement required all things of us that are written in the Law: which, because we were not able to pay, therefore our Lord paid those things for us, and freely took, and received upon himself the Curse and Condemnation to which we were liable: he himself suffered those things that we ought to have suffered.  
The same in the same place. Now declare unto me, who are those five Enemies, from which Christ hath delivered us.  
A. Death, the Devil, the Curse, and Condemnation of the Law, Sin, and Hell.  
B. As touching Death, you said, it was destroyed by the Obedience of Christ: So also after what manner he delivered us from the slavery of the Devil: Now declare how he redeemed us from the Curse of the Law, being made a Curse for us? And after he had said a few words:  
A. God in his just Judgement required of us all things that are written in the Law, which because we were not able to pay, therefore Christ our Lord paid those things for us, and willingly took and received unto himself the Curse and Condemnation to which we were liable. And And he himself suffered those things that we ought to have suffered, being scourged, besmeared with spittle, beaten, smitten on the cheek, crucified and died for us.  
Theophylact in the first Chapter to the Hebrews, on these words, procuring the Expiation of our sins by him. When he had spoken concerning the Majesty of the Divinity, of the Word, afterwards he discourseth of his care, that he takes for men by his flesh, which is much more, than that he beareth all things. And here he asserts two things, both that he cleansed us from our sins, and also that he did this by himself. For by the Cross and Death which he sustained, he purged us, not only because he died for our sin, whereas himself was free of all sin, and suffered punishment, which yet he did not owe to us, and delivered that Nature that was simply condemned for the sin and transgression of Adam.  
On Cap. 9 For that cause Christ died, that he might cleanse us; and in his Testament bequeathed unto us the pardon of sin, the use of his Father's Goods, being made the Mediator of our Father. For the Father would not let go the Inheritance to us, but was angry at us as Sons rejecting him, and estranged from him. Therefore Christ becoming Mediator, reconciled him unto us. How? what we should have suffered (for we should have died) that he suffered for us, and made us worthy of his Testament.  
Anselm concerning the Conception of the Virgin, and Original Sin, cap. 22. If every one hath not the sin of Adam, saith some body, how sayest thou that none is saved without Satisfaction for the sin of Adam? For how doth the just God require of them Satisfaction for the sin they have not? To which I say, God exacteth of no sinner more than he oweth: But because none can restore as much as he owes, Christ only rendered more than is due, for all that are saved.  
Bernard. Epist. 190. to Innocentius. It was a man that owed, and it was a man that paid. For, saith he, if one died for all, them are all dead; to wit, that the Satisfaction of one may be imputed to all, as he only did bear the sins of all, and so there was not found one that purchased and another that satisfied, because one Christ is Head and Body; therefore the Head satisfied for the Members, Christ for his own Bowels.  
Arnoldus Carnotensis in his Work concerning the seven last words that were spoken by Christ upon the Cross. He is forsaken with them that are forsaken, and paid a Tribute for the Nature that he took, and being to carry with him his own kindred beyond the Sea of this World, paid the fare of his flesh to the plundering Pirates, and deceived their greedy Teeth being glued together, and drew away, and carried up both himself and his prey. He offered himself to be a Debtor for Debtors, and what he owed not of himself, he refused not to owe of his own accord. Therefore the Exacter required the sum of the whole Debt of him, who gave himself for all.  
Nicetas Choniates in the Annals in John Commenus. Christ falling raised up the Carcase of our Nature, stretching forth his hands upon the Cross, and with a few Sprinklings bringing the whole World into Unity.  
Nicalaus de Cusa Cardinalis excitationum lib. 10. Thus Christ acted for our Justification: for we sinners, in him, suffered the infernal punishments that we justly deserve.  
FINIS.